this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
204 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3408 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
 

Laura Ingraham let plenty of false claims from John Eastman fly in her two-part interview with him — except one

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ooboontoo@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Autobot wasn't great with this article. Basically you can say whatever you want as long as you don't bring up voting fraud since that resulted in a huge settlement against Fox News.

This version of the bot is pretty bad. It often misses the major facts of an article and copies over random paragraphs.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The conversation, which aired in two parts on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, was predictably genial, with Ingraham allowing Eastman to make dubious claims without significant pushback.

The attorney who tried his best to help Trump find a legal loophole to escape eviction from the White House has repeatedly endorsed debunked and nonsensical assertions about fraud in the 2020 election.

You know, like the thing about boxes of ballots being under a table in Georgia or the laughable assertions of Dinesh D’Souza’s film “2000 Mules.” Stuff that good-faith observers of the election should have set aside long ago.

A more significant one is that Trump and his allies used the delay triggered by the riot to continue to cajole legislators to block the electors from states won by Joe Biden.

“Some people had urged that Vice President Pence simply had power to reject electors whose certification was still pending,” Eastman said later in the Fox News interview, prompting Ingraham to say that she didn’t agree with that argument.

“Lee received a two-page memo from the White House on Saturday, January 2, authored by legal scholar John Eastman,” Woodward and Costa write later.


The original article contains 1,263 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] rynzcycle@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago