this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
118 points (93.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
5152 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 95 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Some of those critics this week highlighted social media posts of Katherine Maher, NPR’s CEO, praising Democrats, calling President Trump a racist and promoting progressive ideas.

Why are they criticizing her for calling a loud-and-proud racist a racist? Because it hurts their feelings?

Sounds like they're telling on themselves.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

True. I feel like there should be an xkcd for this statement.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It’s a quote from Stephen Colbert’s 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner speech

Source

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He literally pleaded 'non-contest' to being a racist, when investigating for bias in his slum rentals. https://www.newsweek.com/fair-housing-acts-50th-anniversary-look-back-investigation-trump-familys-879437

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The link you provided doesn't say that, "Trump and his father, who were both named as defendants, responded by accusing the Department of Justice of defamation, and filing a $100 million countersuit. The messy legal battle ended with the Trumps signing a consent decree, an agreement that allows both parties to end a dispute without admitting fault."

Translation: While being sued for discrimination the Trumps sued the DOJ for accusing them of defamation for a large sum of money and dragged it out in court until the DOJ decided the case was costing them too much with no end in sight and was forced to mutually drop the cases against each other, thus allowing the Trump's to not be tried for discrimination. They used their wealth to avoid consequences, so much the same as we're seeing now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Okay but the material facts of the case included that their employees were instructed to identify applicants who were black and refuse to rent to them because they were black.

That’s not a judgement, it’s just central evidence uncovered by the DoJ.

Which, if you’ll pardon the expression, is a kind of no contest that he’s racist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

There's no doubt he's racist, but don't you think at the very least we should strive to be better than fox news at reporting the details?