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
lot easier to talk shit than actually say something that means anything huh. i think you said something about 'effort' a minute ago?
Ever heard of pigeon chess? You’re the pigeon.
Look buddy, if you just insist on playing with the grandmasters running this story (specifically, the galaxy brains behind CALL TO ACTIVISM on X (formerly twitter) and exactly no other sources of any variety at all) but god and everyone will know I tried to help you out of this obvious fucking engagement bait you got tangled in your before I left off, so here let me google that shit for you you lazy arrogant projective ungrateful [insert generic unflattering adjective here]: Exactly 0 news outlets are running with the "the chair tried to pull a fast one while literally everyone was watching" angle. The only other source I was able to find was one other video repeating the claims (https://bsky.app/profile/davek67.bsky.social/post/3lurty2bcik27) with suspiciously similar claims and pacing and structure and with the same video source as the X "article" (read: casual plagiarism).
here is pbs news covering the vote with precisely no mention of a lie or stolen vote controversy or anything of the kind: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-subcommittee-votes-8-2-to-subpoena-justice-department-for-epstein-files
here is cbs news covering the vote with precisely no mention of a lie or stolen vote controversy or anything of the kind: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-committee-votes-to-subpoena-justice-department-for-epstein-files/
here is ap and you'll never guess what their author and editors all forgot to include in their so-called "professional" reporting: https://apnews.com/article/epstein-files-congress-democrats-subpoena-republicans-trump-5d17ea83f7ffeff5784159848b97f38e
I could go on like this for some time but if you don't get it by now you never will. Or, to put it in a metaphor you might more easily understand: at some point I have to stop predigesting your food for you and push you out of the nest or you'll never fledge.
Buddy, you swallowed clickbait. Stop being stubborn and actually check your sources next time.
Just to be clear, you are on the side of people defending rapist, pedophile, child sex traffickers.
Fuck you. Have fun shitting all over the board and declaring victory.
You ignorant wretch, im on your side. I'm not shitting on a chessboard, that twitter post was a fantasy made up for engagement and you fell for it and I'm telling you about it. We're not playing chess. There are no pigeons. It's the internet. People lie for attention. Can we please resume our focus on the actual story? It's good that the epstein files are finally being taken seriously, but I have no faith in this government in any capacity to actually run this investigation due to corruption. The corrupt government is bad enough on its own. You don't have to make up extra bullshit the shit they're already actually doing is evil enough. Fuck off with your boring shit now please or actually dont this is the most human interaction I've had in months.
Yeah, the government is so corrupt that nobody in that position, who would more than likely benefit from that information being withheld, would ever attempt to lie to get their way, right? That would just be ridiculous, right?
Aight look hang on a second. We're both humans. We're both upset about the fact that children are being systematically raped, right? And that their abusers have not only escaped justice but are most probably in the position of administering "justice" themselves now, right? We're on the same page as far as that goes, I'm pretty confident in saying.
So what are we actually arguing about? I think we might actually agree a lot more than either of us realize. I'm not saying this guy is innocent, hand him his halo. I'm saying the specific sketch being attributed to him in this particular instance is unearned. No snark, no heat, no smoke, no sarcasm: I'm just using my eyes looking at this video and I see a guy smiling and sharing a joke with a political rival that made a whole room laugh, not an attempt to lie about the vote. Like, even in the most uncharitable interpretation that he is a completely tactless moron who was literally trying to gavel the single no against a roomful of aye-witnesses including several from his own party: They laughed the attempt down. Honestly, the interaction is actually kind of wholesome like, literally I don't think I've ever seen a more clear example of willing bipartisanship in years, maybe in my entire political lifetime, and that working apparently toward the investigation of the pedo files. The guy they're maligning played a reluctant but willing part as far as I can tell in bringing this subpoena to life. He was clearly opposed to it but I managed to come away from that video with the impression that he was pleased with the way the entire situation unfolded anyway.
There's a lot of stuff going on in this epstein story, and I'm just trying to say this "vote stealing lie" is a manufactured controversy not actually part of that epstein story, and that it's a distraction from the actual legitimate story, and that people need to pay closer attention to their sources, thats it. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.