388
Under oath, John Kelly raises serious allegations against Trump
(www.msnbc.com)
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 10 Jul 2023
388 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
4418 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
Lol relying on telling the other person what they were implying to create an argument for yourself. Followed by saying "we're not stupid" as if you have a bunch of people around you're speaking for.
I said they're both dicks. They both are. You want to argue the size, you go for it, I'd agree that Trump 100% is the "bigger dick" of the two, he's absolute garbage, but since I'm not on some fanciful battlefield fighting in your war of the blues & reds, I wasn't concerned with who tarnished their side the most. My concern was more geared toward the fact that rich folks shouldn't get away with doing shit the rest of us can't. If you're going to make statements for you and, whoever else falls under "we," about whether or not you all are "stupid," you should make less assumptions, it doesn't help your case.
That's a favored tactic of the red side.
Both sides, impartial, enlightened centrism, yadda yadda.
It's sad because "both sides bad" can be a valid argument, if it hadn't been coopted as an undercover facist dog whistle.
True. In some cases it's important to bring up.
Everything needs context.
Anything to prevent "we don't want to live under a 2 party dictatorship anymore" from being an option, right?
Definitely don't want to suppress that fact, not disagreeing with you.
That's been my position throughout, the disagreement came from the other person assuming my stance because it didn't align with theirs. Much appreciated.
"if you're not with us, you're against us," is somehow better? The only options are the options YOU give me? Shew, you got authoritarian with a quickness. The whole seeing the world in black & white isn't a sign of much depth... It's also the primary reason it's hard to agree with "the red side" on a lot of their arguments. Hate something so much you start acting like it 🤦🏼♂️