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
So...
You believe what Kash Patel kneejerk said, and all the weird "evidence" that smelled off and if real would never be released pre-trial...
You think ole Kash just dropped it and stopped talking about it because...
What exactly?
If what they were saying was true, why would they ever just completely stop talking about it at a moments notice? It went from a giant thing they couldn't stop talking about, to literally pretending it never happened...
Right after people started talking about how the shooter was a groyper.
I'm just having difficulty understanding that, it makes zero logical sense to me how what you're saying could be considered by anyone other than actual Nazis as the most plausible sequence of events.
If Charlie Kirk was killed because of trans issues, they'd never stop talking about it. The only logical reason for maga to not care about why Kirk was shot, is because the truth would hurt maga.
But as a benefit of doubt, can you tell me why you're so fucking convinced Kash Patel's obvious propaganda was real and they just decided to drop the issue?
This feels like a very aggressive response to someone repeating something they heard in the situation. Unless there's more conversations elsewhere with this particular user on this topic that triggered you into being so defensive, the post you responded to doesn't suggest that OP is "so fucking convinced Kash Patel's obvious propaganda was real". FFS they even opened with a question about the narrative.
Maybe there's history here, but you're response is really dickish for no reason.
This guy gets aggro at the drop of a hat.
Yea, but they also make valid reasonable posts a lot of time too. This one has content that makes sense and is valuable for discussion, but it was wrapped in cunty aggression.
Genuinely uninformed people are difficult to distinguish from concern trolls, and indulging the latter poisons the well and lets the propagandists win. That's why it's so important to aggressively root them out, but also why doing so in and of itself can be dangerous when you get it wrong.
Anyway, @givesomefucks' tone was wrong, but his facts were not. So anyone participating in good faith ought to forgive/ignore the former and focus on the facts instead of making a tone argument, because that keeps the discussion on track while scolding the guy does not.
Gee BassTurd, the world may never know...
Why do you think it's not a big deal?
Quick edit:
And before you say "I knew that, you're just not being nice"...
I'm often reminded of MLK in exchanges like this:
https://letterfromjail.com/
That is why I, like MLK, get fucking frustrated with people "just asking questions" and taking fascist propaganda at face value and giving them the benefit of the doubt...
Your response to a seemingly innocent question was shitty. You could have acted and responded like an adult instead of the way you did. A respectful level headed response, like the middle paragraphs of your post would have been more than enough to clarify the situation and get your point across, but you had to attack OP instead.
I'm sorry you can't empathize with myself and Dr King on our frustrations, but I'll still try to empathize with you as much as I'm able like he would have wanted.
But honestly, it's 2025.
Anyone that is listening to trump's propaganda and spends time spreading it, it's shocking that anyone would not only be ok with that, but leap to defend the people spreading it and the propaganda itself.
Do you honestly think the best use of your time is tone policing the people correcting propaganda?
You think that's the big threat today and not the propaganda itself that is designed to direct violence towards vulnerable minorities?
I may potentially hurt someone's feelings, the propaganda is getting people killed.
If you think thats in the same ballpark, a lot of people are going to start questioning your motivations.
I think being a dick is going to push people away ignoring the valid parts of your statement and continue to spread said propaganda where a reasonable correction would both educate and stop the spread.
Being an asshole to someone that is maybe just ignorant is pretty fucked up and does more damage than good.
The way a message is delivered is just as important as the message itself.
Really?
If that works why aren't you doing that instead of whatever you're trying to do now?
Why not reply to the person spreading the propaganda with the same information but in a nicer tone?
Are you legitimately not seeing the parallel to the people who refuse to support a protest because it inconveniences them instead of unifying against the problem they claim to agree with?
Can you honestly not see any of this?
Quick edit:
Also, you've called me a dick and asshole in the last reply...
And called me "cunty" when talking about me to a third party...
If what you're saying is true, why not take your own advice?
When did I directly and repeatedly call someone gradeschool level insults?
Your response was to someone that asked a question and seemed legitimately ignorant on a topic and you shit on them for being mistaken. I acknowledge that the point you were trying to make was valid, but what I remember most is your hostility, not the content of your message. In turn, my response to you is to just tell you that you're being a dick. I didn't go in with the intention to educate you on a topic you may be ignorant on, but to chastise your behavior. Those are two very different situations that can merit different responses. If you read back, my initial response was firm but respectful and then escalated as you kept doubling down.
Where is this coming from? There is no parallel between that and your response. OP isn't (assumed) intentionally spreading propaganda where the US government that is being protested against is. The motive is different. One from a position of ignorance and the other malice. Peacefully writing letters to a government that doesn't give a shit obviously isn't effective so inconveniencing people is more effective. Explaining to an individual, who specifically asked a question on the topic, why their belief is likely wrong doesn't require the same type of response.
The aggressiveness of my response to and about you are to match the hostility in yours. That's the difference between me to you and you to OP.
Again, the assumption is OP legitimately thought that the shooter did it due to trans rights. I personally heard the alleged shooter has someone trans close to them. I also heard that he is a right wing nut job. Those are about the only two things that I personally read on the topic. Now I can connect the dots myself and don't trust a word out of a Republican's mouth, so I already was in the same boat as you. Other people may hear the propaganda and not know that they have been fed lies. Shitting on them for their ignorance is shitty.
So...
You didn't think it would be effective, but you still called me 4th grade playground insults because? Why exactly?
I'm trying to understand if you know your method wasn't the only effective way, and you just insulted me for no reason.
Or if you do think what you said about tone was right, so the only reason you replied at all was to hurl the juvenile insults.
I know it seems pedantic, but I do genuinely want to know and understand why you're doing any of this instead of making a nicer comment explaining it to that other person since you don't think my reply worked...
Uh no, it just seems that’s what it was from the texts the FBI released that the killer allegedly wrote to his allegedly trans girlfriend. But groypers absolutely will bang trans women, and they do hate Kirk, but I haven’t really seen any hard evidence that the guy was a groyper either. But if you have some I’m all ears, unless you’re going to fly into another dickish rage at me for no reason like you did the last guy.
The same guy said trump never raped killed with Epstein...
That's the person whose word you're comfortable taking without seeing actual evidence?
And no, a picture of a text message is not any kind of "proof".
But you shouldn't trust a random social media account either, so here's something that literally took 10 seconds to search online for:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/plot-twist-shocking-new-evidence-ties-kirk-s-accused-killer-to-far-right-leader-not-dems-who-maga-blamed-watch/ar-AA1MuhHl
That was just the first result, there's pages and pages of articles...