365
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 15 Oct 2024
365 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3050 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.
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You really think being photographed with someone is damning evidence? No offense, but that's /r/conspiracy levels of stupid.
It's stupid if you ignore the context of why people would have a problem with it, Taco. Stein isn't a world leader, she's a civilian. There is no good reason for her to be having dinner with Vladimir Putin, the leader of an adversarial country, especially while also accompanied by a known traitor to America and several Russians affiliated with Putin. It's one thing for world leaders to meet one another, it's entirely different when it's a civilian. Especially a civilian whose actions every 4 years just so happen to be beneficial for Putin.
You still haven't explained why it's okay for Stein to be having dinner with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin.
I'm not ignoring any context. It was a picture provided with no context.
The context you've now provided "There is no good reason for her to be having dinner with Vladimir Putin," is stated as if it is a priori, but it's not.
And that seems to be your whole point: it's damning because she shouldn't have been there, because I say it's damning that she is there. It's circular. The reality is that because you can't explain it, it's suspicious, not damning. And I agree with that. It should raise suspicions. You're confusing your suspicion with knowing something.
That's not how it works. You're the one claiming something nefarious. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the evidence provided of your claim is "r/conspiracy levels of stupid" as it's one of their favorite pieces of non-evidence.