501
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
501 points (97.5% liked)
politics
18933 readers
3723 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.
- 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.
- 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
I really wish they would give at least a tiny bit of context to this summary. It would be nice to just know if it was purely malicious or if it was due to some sort of bureaucratic nonsense where they have some sort of strict rules in place that forces them to refuse grants of any kind or something.
Either way it would be ridiculous to refuse... But for fuck's sake at least offer a little bit of context... The summary here just reads like pure outrage porn...
Pitchforks and torches are fucking tiring to carry around all the damn time...
Edit: just read the full article and yeah that's fucked up... school board voted against the grant because of the organization it was coming from and clearly had no desire to evaluate the project on its own merits... The dissenting opinion from one member of the board is actually a really good one and would recommend anyone curious to go read it.
You know, I feel like there was a time before Trump when I could look at an outrage headline and assume the truth was more nuanced. It usually did work out that way. After some point, not only was there no nuance to it, but the truth was even worse than the headline let on.
Meh, the world was crazy before Trump and it's going to remain crazy long after he is gone. I didn't care for the guy all that much but I can't see the point in treating him like some giant milestone in American politics.
People thought it was insane that we elected an actor to serve as President just a few decades ago and acted in much the same way then as people act about Trump today.
Well, for starters he was the first president to try to retain the office despite losing an election.
We should never normalize that.
Lol, well that narrative appears to have taken a deep turn away from reality.
You guys do understand that from the middle the insane propaganda of the right is nearly indistinguishable from the stuff coming from the left, right?
Plenty of elections have been contested... There is no evidence that I've seen of an attempt towards a coup d'etat.
I don't like the guy either but holy crap... I mean a good chunk of his military administration didn't even necessarily like the guy. I know General Goldfein personally, he wouldn't have allowed Trump to stage a coup... That man was and is about as honorable a general as one could ask for.
You can oppose Trump and also not fall for media sensationalism, I promise you will be okay.
I think it's possible you may be young enough that you don't know or remember the controversy surrounding Reagan, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush again. I mean Reagan was so controversial that people tried to assassinate him and there media was reporting he was mentally unfit in his second term. Reaganomics was incredibly controversial and Democrats in that day treated it almost the same way that the Republicans today are treating Bidenomics.
Trust me in the grand scheme of American politics Trump isn't wildly unique. I offer those words to everyone not in his defense, because fuck that guy, but in hopes of inspiring a little more calm in the world because it ain't healthy for any of us to be this outraged all the time. All it does is just make us all more vulnerable to being manipulated.
You can try to gaslight people all you want.
We all saw what happened.
I read the legal case that his administration made.
We know what the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were up to that day, and why.
His own lawyer said he wasn't going to leave.
Pretending otherwise doesn't make it reality.
Normalizing it is collaboration.
Why don't you ask that bleeding-heart leftist Liz Cheney what the fuck he was up to?
I didn't see any dissenting opinion in the article. I really can't fathom what the could but up as a valid defense of this.
Ooohh, ok, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were referring to one of the troglodytes who voted to reject the funds... that they had an opinion worth reading. Got it!
No no.. this is the dissenting opinion I was referring to...
“We as a board are making it more controversial than it has to be,” said board member Anthony Andrews, who complimented the kids for doing exactly what we want our young people to do: show leadership and initiative, identify problems and find solutions. “If we vote no on this, we send the message that we don’t trust the students."
We need solid journalism. But with everyone conditioned for years now to crave outrage reporting, there's not enough demand for unbiased facts.
My hope is that this is a temporary growing pain as we wrap our heads around having the internet in our lives.