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
Yeah, that's about what I expected. Discussion and understanding between two parties is a two way street. You've provided vague refutations with no specifics. Claimed assumptions without stating what those are. I don't even know what point you're trying to make aside from telling people they are wrong for feeling a certain way about something.
You expected me to bow out because you’re looking for an argument?
Weird.
I was expecting you to not answer a single question I asked earnestly with any detail or specificity.
Well, if your expectations are based on previous situations where you entered a discussion that wasn’t directed at you and you acted with a similar defensive aggression, I suppose I can see how you’d have predicted my reluctance to discuss anything with you.
Learn how to talk to people that you disagree with. It’s a very valuable life skill.
Oh forgive me for participating in a public conversation, I didn't realize I hacked into your DM's between you and that fellow. Thanks for moving the goal posts though. Maybe you should have just said that in your first reply.
You're totally right though, I'm the defensive one. Your not displaying classic projection or anything of that sort. Yet you keep responding here despite STILL refusing to answer a single question that's been asked of you.
Here's what it felt like conversing with you thus far.
"You're wrong."
"Why?"
"Because you're wrong, stop talking to meeeee!"
"Can I have some reasons why you think I'm wrong?"
"Because you're wrong! What part didn't you understand?!"
"Can you give me specifics?"
"Reeeeee! I'm not talking to you!"
But you are. You're just not saying anything.
So if I refuse to fall for your debate trolling, I’m suddenly “moving goalposts,” and “displaying classic signs of projection”.
Toss in “virtue signaling” and we’ll have the trifecta of accusatory psychobabble- but I suppose your weird little fantasy conversation between us can be a place-holder for that.
Either way, no. You lost this one the moment you barged in with your own little “REEEEEEEEE!” when I wasn’t even talking to- or about you. I knew right away that it would be a wasted effort.
And there’s no crime in simply responding in defense to your accusations. Stop blindly accusing me of whatever you think will stick, and this discussion will be over.
It’s up to you.
Interesting, now you knew right away all sorts of things. And yet here you are still yapping away. So what does that mean, you're some kinda masochist? Who is trolling who? All I asked of you was to tell me what assumptions I made in my analogy and you've exerted tremendous effort to not answer. And you keep bringing up that you weren't talking to me. That's not how this format of public discourse works. Are you new to public forums or something? Plenty of people jump in at various points in a thread and it creates many forks. I can draw you a diagram if that would help you.
No. I knew right away because It’s pretty easy to tell when someone barges into a discussion, aggressively defending themselves against accusations that weren’t even levied against them.
And by the way- I’m pretty sure “yapping away” isn’t a trait commonly known to be possessed by masochists. So, I’m not certain what this mess was about, but it does lend to my theory that you’re just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.
Considering that I told you some time ago that I’m not open to discuss this topic with you as I don’t believe you’re here in good faith and only want to argue, and you keep accusing me of things in order to continue arguing, I’d say you’re the troll here. I’m simply giving you the grounds to prove it.
It’s funny how you have taken note of this, but not the fact that I’ve told you several times that I don’t wish to discuss this with you because I don’t believe you to be here in good faith to discuss it. And yet- you continue to respond to antagonize and accuse- thus proving my point.
That is probably because I wasn’t.
One would think that in the “format of public discourse” if one is asked to drop it because the other doesn’t wish to discuss it with them, that they would drop it. But here we are.
And the fork you created is one in which you became immediately defensive and aggressively attacked a point I wasn’t even making with meritless pretend discussions. That’s childish rhetoric. I don’t debate against childish rhetoric. This will have to be okay with you.
It would. Your next response had better contain one or I will be disappointed. And make it pretty.