this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
447 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5313 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Whether he deserves "every drop of outrage" is subjective, so hard to argue with you on that.

However, you're arguing here a case of priorities, one I agree with.

But the top level poster is claiming that he's going on vacation instead. Which is not reasonable. It's basically lying. Which is my point: it's not about being reasonable (in your case pointing out misplaced priorities), it's about being as outraged as possible (spinning it into a vacation).

You seem like a reasonable person, so don't defend this garbage.

[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I do try to remain reasonable.

I was commenting on the garbage decision of the governor to leave the state, rather than the garbage decision of OP to make up or repeat misinformation that it was outrage over a Cruz vacation. I'm with you on avoiding manufactured outrage.

"It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip." can be seen defense of the governor when you omit the details.

You didn't just call out OP's bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.

That is what compelled my reply.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.

In my own defense, I did not imply it, you inferred it probably because you interpreted any defense of him, despite being couched in trepidation of defending him at all, as a defense of the trip.

I can see why explicitly not saying it I left this open to interpretation, so I don't consider myself blameless, but I certainly did not imply it.