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
Point is that you'll see various statements from victims regarding recovery, but they shouldn't be given the level of truth that most would afford them. Trump lied, of that there is no doubt. It's a given.
But what does this have to do within the context of what the article is talking about? Again, it sounds like you are dancing around, but still kind of implying, that the government of Georgia might not be telling the truth when it comes to what Biden has done.
I know that you want to read some implications between the lines, but there are none.
Im reading your post in the context of the article. The only one who they got a comment from that could be considered a victim is Kemp, and you said they should be taken "with a grain of salt." It now appears your post had nothing to do with the article, but just disasters in general.
It has nothing to do with me wanting anything, but you talking about some kind of unrelated and that causing confusion.
I can see you have strong feelings on the matter, if nothing else from your continuing response. Are you sure you don't want something? Perhaps if I remove it and promise to never do whatever again you'll feel better.
How strong my feelings are about the topic have nothing to do with the point. It's interesting, however, that you are trying to make this about me rather than the point. That just tells me you realize I've made a good point, but don't want to admit it.
I do realize this is a rather dreary conversation and I'd rather it be concluded, so if there is nothing more...
You know you could have just left when you originally abandoned the point. But I can see you have strong feelings on the matter, if nothing else from your continuing response.
I've abandoned nothing except boredom. Surely, you can bother someone else.
Life advice: when I find something boring I stop doing it and find something else to do. I don't continue to do it while announcing to the world how bored I am of it.
That's great, how nice for you.
Thanks, I appreciate it. You might even be able to learn from the nice things I do for myself.
I doubt it. I wouldn't take advice from others of your ilk. I find them too pretentious and unschooled.
There's little more pretentious than believing that simply because a person doesn't have some arbitrary amount of training, that they don't possess useful knowledge that you can learn from them.
As you continually make more and more clear, your strong suit seems to be projection.
You seem to confuse me with someone who cares what you think. I can assure you, I've joined the what must be the large group of people that really don't
You sure do spend a lot of time trying to make me feel bad, for someone who supposedly doesn't care what I think.
In fact, by your own metric, the amount of times you've responded reveals strong feelings on the matter. Or do you not realize that that was an obvious projection?
So now you complain that I respond to you? If you don't want a response why not stop? I'll tell you why. Because, in your world if you have the last say you win! A ridiculous notion but there you are. You now are angry that I don't Play your game. So sorry. And also sorry you feel "bad", but after all you did it to yourself.
No, not at all. I'm quite enjoying this. It's very entertaining watching your flail around.
You've, multiple times, tried to get me to stop posting, when all you've had to do was stop responding to me; this is your most obvious projection yet.
You've intentionally and directly insulted me numerous times. It's obvious you want me to feel bad. Why pretend it's not your goal?
Oh again you go into the barrel. This is taking boring to a new level. Let's see..
First we start with the classic "No, you stop" .. Old and never in the top 40. My simplest response, you first. Obviously you enjoy this stupidity, so it could go on for days
I didn't insult you. I told the truth and you took it as an insult. I don't want you to feel bad. I could care less how you feel. You are just an anonymous entity on a chat board.
Guess that's it for now
No, please don't stop. It's hilarious how long you've gone while at the same time repeatedly stating how boring it. lol Who does that? Eventually I'll bore of watching this desperate attempt to win by getting the last word in, and then I'll just leave. This is how people who don't have to get the last word in act. But for now it's some good entertainment throughout the day.
Well, you don't enjoy it, as you've repeatedly called it boring, and yet you seemingly can't just walk away. It's like you want to make it extremely obvious that your "you have to get the last word in!" is just a massive projection.
So now you are projecting. Pot meet kettle.
is this the part where you both spend an hour going through each other's entire comment history and down vote every single thing?
That sounds like something I don't care about as well.
I have votes turned off. Have they actually been downvoting me?
The grain of salt but was directly tied to interviewing citizens affected by the disaster, saying they’re probably emotional and not fully present when interviewed.
It was not tied to Kemp, the gov’t, or any of that.
It’s about the majority of victims affected.
Except the only one that was interviewed who could be considered a victim is Kemp. Which is where the confusion came from. If you are saying that victims statements should be taken with a grain of salt, and in the context there is one victim, then it sounds like you are showing some doubt about what they are saying.
Dude how hard is it to get that this guy wasn't directly commenting on the article
It's not. I get it now. I'm just pointing out that the confusion was the result of their unrelated comment, rather than their accusation that I "want" it to imply something. I'm explaining what caused the confusion.
Valid, but you're not doing it very clearly. This whole thread is a mess tbh