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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'll take that as a "yes, I did expect you to justify your feelings to my personal satisfaction."
He is racist. In fact, his first election campaign was just racism and a magical wall that paid for itself. He acts exactly like a modern "strongman" facsist leader and his policies and attempts to overthrow and circumvent American democracy, such as it is, speaks for themselves. I don't think he's as bad as hitler. At least we can agree on that. Although, I haven't seen any news reports try to make him out to be as bad as hitler.
Lets just take the first claim - "He is racist". You said that with a definitive statement so there has to be definitive proof. Please show me the proof in context please. Thank you!
I love how you keep doubling down on the presumptive arrogance.
As strange as it may sound to you, I actually don't need to prove what I know myself to have seen, to your personal satisfaction, in order to maintain that belief. Its just bizzare that you think that plus the inevitable burden of proof fallacy you plan on using is going to work here. I mean, you've worked your way through a good list of invalid arguments, in an attempt to make me refute the evidence of my eyes and ears. I don't know what to say to you really.
This is the internet, not a criminal court of law where I'm the state and you're the defendant. If anything, its on you to disprove the commonly accepted consensus. As if you think you can assign homework to people you disagree with.
You made the claim that the media is wrong about trump being a racist. I said but he is.
You own logic puts the burden on you. Let me guess, you don't like your own rules anymore?
Gotcha, you want me to prove a negative... That actually not possible to do... So long story short you cant prove the assertion you made?
Again, nice try but 'you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.
I'll add that one to your long list of invalid arguments shall I?
I'll take that as a "no, I've suddenly decided I no longer like the rules I failed to impose on you." I've only ever seen cult members use as many fallacious arguments as you do. You didn't even attempt to argue that trump wasn't a racists despite claiming it to be thus and such, without a shred of evidence. Youre happy to believe it despite your own false claim that you can prove a negative.
Sorry but youre going to have to do a lot better than invalid arguments and sealioning. I can't even blame you for it, as it must work on people.
So then you cant prove trump is racist?
Not to someone who's determined to deny it, no matter the cost, and engage in any manner of fallacious, underhanded, side stepping nonsense they believe will further their cause.
Unfortunately, it would take some intellectual integrity from you and you've shown yourself to be utterly devoid of any, over and over again.
I mean, you can't even prove the assertion you originally made. Instead you claim I have to prove you wrong, burden of proof fallacy, even after your argument of "you can't prove a negative" falls to pieces.
So, you can't prove trump isn't a racist, despite claiming the media is lying about him being racist? In fact, even worse, you won't even attempt to demonstrate the claim you made to be true.
Gotcha you are just going to filibuster. Have a great day!
Gotcha, you're only used to arguing with people dumb enough to fall for your cheap tricks and poor, invalid arguments. If that's all I had, I'd run away too.
You also!