politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They barely even fact checked him in the first place. They called him on a total of, what, three things? As opposed to the probably dozens of other complete untruths he uttered, not even just about policy and so forth but actual empirically verifiable elements of reality?
Here's just what I spotted:
There were probably others.
He also essentially admitted that his plan for the war in Ukraine was to just let Russia win. That should be pretty damn worrisome for anyone.
I wish they had pushed him harder on the simple yes or no questions.
Also, Harris missed a perfect opportunity to point out that Trump has been the only president that has advocated a gun ban. "take the guns and figure out due process later"
The yes/no about "should Ukraine win the war" he wouldn't answer anything except that he would end the war. He would just give up Ukraine to Russia to end it, though, and he didn't want to say that on TV.
He loves backstabbing allies. He's a dishonorable man.
The Kurds remember.
That would make him enemies right in the middle of his fandom.
You can't force him to change his answer. Y'all think you could fact check trump better live.
No, I meant when he was asked a yes or no question directly, multiple times, he never gave an actual answer.
Oh my bad, I agree on that point. Sort of expected it though but it would be nice to hear a simple answer here and there.
I'm sure he was completely truthful when he said he didn't read Project 2025. It would be very surprising if he read anything besides Mein Kampf.
The only way he actually read Mein Kampf is if it came in picture book format
"Everyone says it, you know Trump really is a genius, they say it. I've read all the best books: the Hungry Caterpillar, Green Eggs and Ham, Goodnight Moon. I'm the biggest read person in the country. They say this. The Giving Tree. I hated that book, communist propaganda! Kambala probably wrote it."
He read Maus but took the wrong lessons from it?
"I hate the art but I love the messaging."
I want this to exist so badly.
Mein erster Kampf
Hell, I'd be surprised if he's read more than the Berenstain Bear on audio book
I learned that what he does actually has a special name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.
Biden wasn’t a sitting president though.
That's true on a technicality, but everyone knows what he meant. In the 2020 election, Biden got ~7 million more votes than Trump in addition to winning the electoral college. Trump's intent was to be intentionally misleading and to twist the qualifications to imply that he should have won last time when, in fact, he didn't.
It's a sobering detail of our situation. In 2020, Trump really did receive more votes than any candidate in any previous election. That means a ton of people showed up to vote for him in 2020 that hadn't in 2016.
He frames it weird (and it sounded weird when he said it) because otherwise it raises the obvious point that Biden also achieved that same record, plus an extra 7 million votes.
True, although population growth is a factor as well.
Like, it wouldn't be surprising to see more total votes than in 1990, just because there's a lot more people. Let alone 1890. The "most ever" has pretty declining meaning after going back just a couple of decades.
% of adult population would be more meaningful.
I agree. It’s technically true but intentionally misleading. That said, I think there are other, better examples to label as lies that don’t get into this gray area.
Lied about Kamala being a Border Czar. She led a diplomatic initiative aimed at curbing immigration, she was never directly involved in border matters.
Lied about how much aid the US is giving Ukraine and how others are not. Lied about how the aid is given (it's in US made products not in Cash, the money stays in the US).
Wait what? Why would Biden build the nordstream?
Go ask whatever parasite is running the show in Trump's brain - it doesn't make any sense and I remember being very confused by that claim in real time