this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024

32 points (68.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers

3612 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

• 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

[email protected]

Harris team fighting muted mics at ABC debate after Biden requested rule (www.washingtonexaminer.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 weeks ago

Isn't Harris the one that wants the mics live? Trump's handlers want them cut to reduce his stupidity/self-incrimination

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

why do i feel like harris really doesnt give a shit, but knows orange turd wants the mics hot? a little reverse psychology on the manchild...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago

Could also be that she's looking for a chance to say "I'm speaking" again.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Orange turd says he doesn’t care, but cold is what he agreed to with a completely different candidate so Harris should be held to that.

Orange turd’s handlers do not want their manchild anywhere near a live mic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

I am positive that if trump pushes back, they will happily have closed mics, but then when he's cut off, and complains, they will blame him.

I also thibinthey are just messing with him when she does not care.

As you said, that agreement was made with someone else, but they tried to hold Trump to the agreement of when and where, based on the same agreement. He just can't call out double standards as its his only mode of action.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

He may not always be near it. Remember him creepily walking behind Clinton during one of their debates.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Does nobody remember her 2020 debate with Pence?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXFqTGBty1w

She shut him down like the whining child he is.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“The Washington Examiner is an American conservative news outlet based in Washington, D.C., that consists principally of a website and a weekly printed magazine. It is owned by Philip Anschutz through MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner

[+] [email protected] -29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Not sure what that has to do with the article.

Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?

You realize that this political news community is not only for posting pro-Democratic Party news, right? Were you under the impression that only pro-democratic party news was allowed?

This community celebrates diversity of thoughts and opinions.

If you feel that this news article, or that the news organization that it comes from, break the rules of this community, please contact the mods and let your thoughts be known.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Pointing out a source's bias is completely reasonable. There's literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It's perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.

If anything, it's kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.

[+] [email protected] -24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.

Ok, and do you do that for the pro-democrat articles? I mean, since you are being so fair and all.

If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.

I'm not defensive, as I didn't write the article, nor do I work for that news org.

It's just that I noticed that you don't do it for pro-democrat articles, but maybe i missed where you have.

So have you been doing it for the news orgs that skew pro-democrat bias? Because you do realize that media bias goes both directions, right? You know, since it's "It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion" of posts and all.

And again, this is a political news community, not just a pro-democrat/pro-harris political community.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

“I’m not defensive…”

Oh yeah, totally can tell from your normal and not weirdly defensive responses. /s

[+] [email protected] -18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What part of anything I said seemed "weirdly defensive" to you?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean …sort of all of it (“Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?”) and the quantity as well. It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments. Must be exhausting.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

So let me get this straight. A guy decided to post a history of the news org wrote the news article that I posted.

I told him I thought was a strange response. He replied that he felt it was a biased news source and wanted to let everyone know.

And I asked him if he did that for other articles as well. And you think me asking that is "weirdly defensive"?

It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments

Please show me one "freak out" that I have had? I reply to comments with the same tone that is offered to me. And many times, in a much nicer tone than is offered to me.

Several comments that people have said to me have been removed, while mine have not. Doesn't sound like the freak out is on my side.

I'm not freak out at all or even upset by commenters on Lemmy. This is zero affect on my real life.

You seem to know an awful lot about my comments and my so-called "freak outs." Maybe you are reading a bit much into it, friend.

Maybe you mistake my wordiness for freaking out. I type fast because I'm a writer. None of this takes up much of my time, nor troubles me.

Let me guess tho: I've been very wordy in my response to you. So this is yet another example of my "weird defensiveness" and "freaking out." Yes?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Bwhahahahaha! Well done! Wow, you really went for it.

Or if you were being serious - what a weirdly defensive reply. But that’s par for the course isn’t?

[+] [email protected] -14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well I do understand that it may take you a while to read all those words.

But hey, I was right that you would think it was a weirdly defensive reply, so we can be friends now, right?

Oh wait...crap! You probably think that this was a weirdly defensive reply too. Dammit! Oh man, we may not be able to break the cycle!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well I do understand that it may take you a while to read all those words

Wow, so uncivil! Now edging from “weirdly defensive” to just “weird”. Which - considering your post history lately - is on brand I suppose.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I was only assuming since you saw what I was saying as weirdly defensive and I couldn't see any other reason you would think that. So I was incorrect? It wasn't the amount of words that made me seem weirdly defensive then?

Which - considering your post history lately - is on brand I suppose.

You seem awfully interested in my post history. I feel so important now. Thank you!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Interested? No. Just unwillingly subjected to your constant freakouts and weird defensiveness. Your shallow need to attack anything that gets posted in any thread you’re on. Your walls of text attempting to bludgeon others into acceptance, or at least submission. Your straw man arguments and other constant logical fallacies.

Probably the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen. No one needs to go looking for your post history - it exists as a sickly miasma on everyone’s /all feed. And the funniest part is that you obviously think you’re so clever, and yet everything you do just makes people want to pay attention to anything you say less and less.

In short - weird.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Probably the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen. No one needs to go looking for your post history - it exists as a sickly miasma on everyone’s /all feed. And the funniest part is that you obviously think you’re so clever, and yet everything you do just makes people want to pay attention to anything you say less and less.

Sounds like you should really just block me then, since I get under your skin that much. Then you wouldn't have to see my posts or my comments or put up with my "freakouts" and "weird defensiveness."

So why haven't you?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because you don’t matter enough to bother blocking and I find your schtick to be somewhat amusing in how transparent it is.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because you don’t matter enough to bother blocking and I find your schtick to be somewhat amusing in how transparent it is.

Ohhhh, ok ok ok so I'm important enough to argue with and told how I suffer from freakouts and weird defensiveness, but it doesn't bother you enough to actually block me.

Hmmm, sounds like the issue may be on your end then. So ya have no reason to be upset since you find me "somewhat amusing"! See? Yay!

Because if you don't wanna spend 3 seconds to block me, then I guess you're fine seeing what I have to say.

Oh man, you are really feeding into the whole "main character syndrome" thing that ya just accused me of having. I mean, I guess I am a main character since after all that you have said about me STILL doesn't make you want to block me.

This is awesome. Thank you for the ego boost!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What gave you any idea I was upset? You’d have to matter for me to be upset and we’ve already addressed that issue. You just asked why I said you were weirdly defensive and here you are showing time and again why that’s such an apt description. You really can’t help yourself, can you? It would add to the amusement if it didn’t have such an undercurrent of need to it. You’re trying so hard and all it does is make you seem desperate and weird.

At this point, any additional reply you make will just be more obvious trolling so I won’t bother to reply. You see, now you’re just becoming boring.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

He's free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn't obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn't owe you anything.

Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case

Agreed. He's totally free to do that.

And I'm free to let him know that I didn't think it really added to the conversation. Which I did.

So you would you be totally cool with me going down every single pro-harris article and giving a brief history of how that news org leans democrat?

How long do you think I could do that before being accused of being a troll?

Should we list the bias of every news org for every article? Or just the ones you all don't like? Cuz I'm cool with doing that if you are.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Go for it

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago

K, and I'll be sure to put links to this conversation so that everyone knows that you thought this was an awesome idea too!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

thought this was 196 for a second

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

Washington Examiner - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Washington Examiner:

MBFC: Right - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3133999/harris-team-fighting-muted-mics-abc-debate/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support