682
Gus Walz broke the internet with his tearful love for his dad. Then the bullying began
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
682 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3566 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My god the media is rubbish, "Trump came under fire in 2015 after he appeared to mock a New York Times reporter with a disability". Like, are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Appeared my ass, he did mock a man with a disability, it isn't a debate, or a perception, or the appearance, he did that shit.
Pretty sure media writes that way to be lawsuit proof. Everything is allegedly, supposedly, reportedly, according to sources, and so forth. Only things a court of law has confirmed are safe to report as facts.
Though I of course agree it is ridiculous as you suggest. There is video evidence of trump doing it, they might as well call it as it is. Attacking a young neurodivergent man for loving his dad is also despicable.
Yea, I know this, just venting because it just seems that benefit of the doubt is reserved almost exclusively for Trump and fascists.
I mean, that’s not true. Maybe there is some SLAPP fear engaged when dealing with hyper litigious fascists, but it’s a standard practice in media. Like day one journalism school stuff. It’s just common practice no matter who they’re talking to. It’s not cover for the right. Those people just tend to do more dogwhistling and outright hatred that we all know means exactly what it means, but it’s still cloaked in at least some sort of deniability. He didn’t come out and call the reporter retarded. They can characterize that however they like. But it’s still not so cut and dry—even though we all know it’s cut and dry—when it comes to reporting on it.
That Infowars fuckstick Alex Jones allegedly lost a lawsuit that he allegedly called Sandy Hook victims crisis actors and also allegedly claimed there were no dead kids which allegedly lead to the harassment of the grieving parents by his alleged followers. Allegedly he still has most of not all his assets and is allegedly going to flee the country, allegedly.
Am I doing this right?
He also fucked an ostrich.
No. They are purely both-sidesing. They'd get mroe clicks and wins in a lawsuit that 100Million-under Trump and they don't care. They would never disparage trump directly without also disparaging whoever his opponent is.