453
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
453 points (95.4% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1358 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Considering how she’s not in politics anymore, I hope she sues him for libel.
Would it be slander if spoken?
Regardless, the standards for a public figure are very high and often difficult to prove. Despite no longer being active in politics, she would still qualify as a public figure.
Public figure or not, it’s 100% false.
So in defamation lawsuits, public figures have a higher burden for legal recourse. It's not enough to simply be false.
Pubic figure is a legal definition.
I haven’t seen her opinion voiced in months. What’s she saying, and who’s publishing it?
The only controversy I heard recently about her is she said something about how we have to 'deprogram Trump supporters' on a massive scale, and Trump supporters got all up in arms because they now think that the government is going to try to forcibly deprogram them.
Which she's of course right about and they're of course being performatively paranoid about 🤦
How is that controversial? People have been saying it and taking about it for years. I'm pretty sure there are documentaries about trying to deprogram COVID deniers and other right wing loonies. Magidiots are just the largest Venn circle of them.
Whenever there's performative outrage, I'm always reminded of the West Wing episode where conservative women are mad at the first lady.
It's such a throwaway line, but it says so much about political discourse and the American people (maybe it's global, but I can only speak from experience). People want to be upset. They seek out reasons to be angry, because it validates their pre-existing hate. And I'm guilty of the same, but I'm working on it.
CNN a week ago
Forbes two weeks ago
Newsweek 16 days ago
PBS 17 days ago
The Hill 17 days ago
Et cetera. You're right that she's being more quiet than usual, though 🤷
Either a child or unemployed.
Objectively false. They are presented as important news by some of the most trusted news outlets in the US and as such not only shown to those you're condescending about.
That's part of my point: she's still considered important enough by the political establishment that they'll present her most inane thoughts as important perspective.
Nope. It says a LOT about her continuing status as a member of the political elite.
Once again objectively wrong.
So nothing to address their actual points then. What a shock.
And I'm definitely still convinced that you're a condescending idiot whose assessment of me is even less relevant to me than the opinions of Hillary Clinton 🙄
Lmao. She's living rent free in your head too.
Imagine being so stuck in an alternate reality. 😂