671
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 04 Jan 2024
671 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1468 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
I'm no fan of Cheeto, but who gives a shit what his niece thinks? Especially when it's the same take for a 100th time.
It’s noteworthy that his own family wishes to record publicly contempt for him, for reasons that should be clear to all, but aren’t.
While I agree people shouldn't be quiet about anything wrong, I don't think anyone in the entire world could break the Trump cult. They won't believe a single thing anyone says if it's a bad thing about Trump. They just become "secret liberals."
Hell, Jesus himself could come down from the sky saying "listen, love thy neighbors, don't worship false idols, and that Trump guy... Woo boy is he the devil incarnate." MAGAmorons would just reject Christianity or call Jesus a liberal and send death threats to God...
I mean, Jesus was a liberal.
Gandhi was problematic in his own right, but he wasn't wrong when he said, paraphrasing, I like your christ, he is so unlike your Christians.
They already do ignore everything Jesus had to say about compassion and wealth
Since you're making this claim, what do you think of the whole "barack obama's half brother" dog and pony show the murdock outlets did with him?
The news loves to play up the family drama angle for clicks so I would normally take the opposite view - that family is a lower credibility source in most cases since they also may not see their business dealings (such as trump refusing to pay contractors)
But this is the 100th time they've put out a variant of this same article with Mary saying the same thing just in a different way. Also, for those who are too busy slobbing his knob, Mary's comments will be dismissed anyway. So all it does, imo, is offer yet another empty circle jerk opportunity for those who already agree with her sentiment without providing any new information or moving the needle in any way. It's lazy and vapid journalism at best and a distraction from his real and serious illegal activites that the Democrats should be hammering him on faily instead.
And the last time I saw her being interviewed she didn't seem too bright either.
Well, she's a Trump, soooo....
The downvotes are from people who haven't been paying attention to current events. You're 100% correct.
Yeah, they put her on CNN every time they got a block of time they need to fill. I like her and glad she speaks the truth, but she doesn’t have many new things to add.
Not I. I downvoted because it's a stupid pointless comment that contributes nothing to the discussion. Can't speak for others however.
I'm not concerned about the downvotes. I do wish there'd be more engagement from people who disagree with my comment, however, as Lemmy is small enough to facilitate actual discussion compared to reddit or other similar forums. But it is what it is.
deleted by creator
I don't think that's a fair assessment of my previous statement there. There is a distinction between blaming everyone but Trump for his bullshit, as you read it but I never suggested, and arguing that this specific article does not in any way deserve our attention, which was my point. Not only because it's an old and played out take, but because pieces like this are equivalent of political frosting. The people who know he's a crook are going to continue to do so, and the people who don't think so are not reading this shit anyway.
There's a difference between shit that he's done that's either illegal or in some other way actionable, and him just being a dick and a loser, which...like, ok yeah? He's still fucking up the election process and trampling all over the basic ideas of democratic governance regardless of how you feel about him on a personal level, and that's all this article is about: "he's a loser on a personal level, take it from someone who's personally related to him."
You've spent quite a bit of time talking about how something isn't worth our attention...
It's almost as if this is a discussion forum and I've been having a discussion with various commenters on the topic.
Wouldn't it be better to have a discussion about something that is worth our attention?
Absolutely. But it still doesn't invalidate my original point: this article was a vapid, superficial, and low effort attempt at journalism.