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
No, you're missing the point. You can't take away their power, and appearing reasonable doesn't affect their ability to make you look foolish. They aren't acting in good faith, and facts can't shed light on their fantasy.
Plus, the "but Hunter does deserve to be punished" line is already part of the conversation, and they simply ignore that anyone on the left has said it. That's why it doesn't matter. They have no obligation to present all the facts, and engagement is an effort that only allows them to stay relevant.
If this is the matter that convinces people to vote or not vote, they're deeply unserious, and there's no reason to think that a zingy one-liner from a right wing pundit at the 11th hour won't sway them the other way. Better to demonstrate the lack of credibility of their sources (e.g. how Jacobin is dishonestly framing this issue) than engage with the narratives they're using as bait.
So if it doesn't matter in the end... why choose the option that looks more pathetic rather than simply say what's going on? I sent this to someone on the right personally and they sent me back another article they liked... I literally got a conservative to read leftist articles ON THEIR OWN with this. How is that not a win tell me, cause I am just immediately more convinced this is a good idea.
lmao, babby's first interaction with a conservative.
Because I'm not interested in appearances. Their goal already is to discredit you by drawing you into their narrative and imply their views are superior by making you look like a clown (remember, they don't have to argue in good faith or present facts to back up their claims). They trade in memes and half-truths. Getting you to engage is part of what makes their song and dance work.
I pointed out in another comment that this is only effective for people who are open to being wrong, people who are interested in where the objective evidence leads. But back again to the context of this article, a headline dishonestly trying to tie the Biden family to the problem of justice inequality as it relates to wealth just feeds the memes and political pundits. It's not truth; it's a Fallacy of Understated Evidence.
Notice how the author(s) imply that Hunter Biden is a pinnacle of "corruption."
There's a company in Texas where the owner personally committed $2 billion (with a B) in tax fraud over decades. He was in his eighties when they caught up to him, so I am willing to bet he'd been at it for much longer than Hunter. But they don't ever specifically mention other notable cases of fraud, and instead spend most of the paragraphs covering the Bidens, while barely mentioning the existence of other cases only in very broad and general strokes.
Essentially, this is cherry picking a single data point in a broader problem and begging the question. "See? Hunter Biden is the poster child of wealth inequality. What other offenses are they guilty of?" It's propaganda crafted to ease people into the larger right wing grift.
It's no wonder your right wing person liked it, because this article is meant for people like them.