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
The word “could” is doing heavily lifting there.
Remember at this moment we have no idea why this home caught fire. We might later but at this point this is all clickbait.
What's funny about that is if a judge's house caught fire during the Biden administration, this kind of speculation wouldn't even happen because Biden didn't run a mafia State like the Trump regime.
Whether it's true or not at this point is irrelevant. The point is that under a mafia State, it's more likely and believable, tells you everything you need to know about living in Trump's Amerika.
You're right, but I couldn't tell you how many times I heard "Biden crime family" in the past 5 years. They're deluded into thinking that Biden did run a Mafia state, so even if they understood what trump is doing as Mafia shit, they'd excuse it as "just doing what the other side does".
Except it isn’t more likely. Arson is not the most common cause of house fires. It is entirely possible this was an accident.
It's also possible you did it. Neither is particularly likely, but it being a random accident is about as likely as you actually being the person who did it. So I suppose the cops should raid your house just to check. After all, we can't be sure. Better send the SWAT team to your home just in case.
No? This is an insane argument.
I found a random statistic online that a home has a 1 in 413 chance of a fire in a given year, lets round up to 1 in 1000. It may be not exactly right, but within an order of magnitude. Trump criticized this judge, any time within about a month would get people saying this- so lets say the stats are there is a 1 in 12,000 chance of any particular person's house burning down within a month of when Trump criticizes them. But Trump doesn't criticize just 1 person a year, lets lowball estimate he criticizes 100 people a year. So that's a 100 in 12,000 or 1 in 120 chance that in any particular year someone Trump criticizes house will burn down within a "suspicious" amount of time. That is nowhere near impossibly low, and now if you add in all the other unlikely but bad things that could happen to them- it happening sometimes is increasingly likely.
Now compare that with the one person writing this comment of the lowball estimate of 100 million people in America who could commit arson(again assuming it was arson).
We currently have no evidence at all forany conclusion so any version of “x or y is more likely” isn’t coming from an informed place.
IRL the most common cause if home fires is not arson. Until we have evidence that it is arson we should not presume it to be. This is how logical thinking works.
You're being purposefully dense. There's having an open mind, and then there's having a mind so open your brain falls out. I don't assume you're a complete idiot, which is why malice on your part is most likely.
And we do have evidence. The three components of a crime are means, motive, and opportunity. And we have abundant evidence for motive. If you tried your argument in court, you would be laughed out of a courtroom.
No, I am not being dense. We have zero evidence backing any theory right now so presuming violence rather than the much more common cause of fires is a stretch. It could be arson but right now you have nothing that suggests this other than vibes.
Chickenshit mod
Wake the fuck up!
House of a judge who is receiving death threats from MAGA mysteriously burns down.
House of a judge who is receiving death threats from MAGA is set on fire by crazed MAGA lunatic.
Its fucking obvious what has happened here
No, it isn’t. The cause could be faulty wiring and it could be a coincidence.
There’s zero reason to conclude anything when we have no evidence to support anything.
Pity we don't get this level of skepticism and calls to wait for a full explanation from MAGA
We aren’t getting it here. The fact is many people have poor critical thinking skills.
Get a job
Maybe you're the actual arsonist and are trying to cover it up. That would be as likely as this being a random coincidental accident.
No its not? Fires happen all the time, Trump criticizes a lot of people. When you have a lot of opportunities for a relatively unlikely event it increases a lot in probability. Nobody is saying it wasn't arson, just saying we don't know.
Right now you have no evidence as none has been offered. Keep that in mind please.
Your bad faith is obvious.
Im making a bad faith argument by reminding you that zero evidence has been offered up by authorities? That’s an interesting take.
Found Stephen Miller's account.
Im guessing you don’t work in programming, law or science. Would that be a correct presumption?
That far right extremists keep perpetuating violence based on far right propaganda and that assuming this is one of those is along the same lines as assuming Kirk was intentionally shot and it wasn't just a random stray bullet.
Sure, we should stay open to the possibility that it is unrelated. But automatically dismissing what is likely to be intentional is ridiculous. She had been receiving death threats, and this would be one way to follow through.
I do work in web development and understand logic and assumptions. What are your credentials?
Saying you don't know is not dismissing.
When it is used to deflect from context that suggests a cause it is dismissing.
That's not what they did, they rejected people acting as if the cause is certain
What is your job again?
Unless he actually answers, it's probably safe to assume Sr. Keyboard Warrior.
You had a point in your original comment, but you definitely lost me now.
They were displaying poor logical skills so I presumed they did not work in a field that required strong logical skills.
arson is not the most frequent cause of house fires so presuming arson as the most likely cause in this case is foolish. It could be a coincidence. We have no idea why this happened and deciding it is political is not logical.
Other than trying to fan the flames of discontent, and thus being part of the problem, what is the point of deciding this was political violence when you have no evidence at all to back any claim?
The intelligent position is to make no claims until you have evidence.
Do you know that arson is not the most common cause of house fires among people currently receiving death threats? Because I don't. Like.. it could be, but I wouldn't presume.
I agree, but that also seems to be agreein with their claim
Ignore context harder daddy!
MAGA arson... Does that clear it up for you?
No?