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
Dude.
And you can't just declare you proved something. Especially something as hilarious as, "he wasn't connected, he just got the money to run a community organization and campaign by magic!" Hell a quick look at his campaign filings puts that shit to rest.
And then you completely ignore the substantive take on how to deal with the problem to instead defend Obama from being called "connected" and "well off". Even going so far a to use the refutation of your rags to riches narrative as an allegation that I'm moving the goal posts.
I'm sorry, do upper middle class/low wealthy dress in rags where you come from?
Don't answer that. It's obvious you never meant to engage in good faith. You've been derailing the main point the entire time by getting way too into the details on one guy. And even then you can't admit when your wrong. No instead we have to accept literal PR as evidence instead of publicly available information.
Let me make my position very, very clear: Saying someone lacks political ambition does not mean they're lazy. I have no idea how you misconstrued that, but I hope I made myself clear. If I wanted to call someone lazy, I would just do it. But are you denying it's easier for people to be critics than actually do better than that which they criticize?
Well when there is no substantive or sourced rebuttal and I sort of, well, did... Then yes, I am going to say that.
Reuters:
I don't know. Anyone whose parents depended on food-stamps may not fit your literal definition of "rags," but I think I made my case. But it's awfully convenient that you can continue to lie about his stepfather's fortunes and giving Obama a cushy life while -- let me check -- giving absolutely zero sources thus far while obviously distorting the "oIl eXeCuTiVe" caricature for which you've clearly deflected because you know you're full of shit on this front. Then finally just denouncing any biographical or autobiographical account of their status as being PR (without any actual evidence).
Then let's turn a different way: We've proved you can go from middle-class to President, but that's not enough for you and means 99.9% can't be president ("banned", as you explicitly wrote)? Finally: I thought I made myself clear in solving issues related to outside money influencing elections and largely agreeing with you in this respect.
Meanwhile you still dodged the questions, and now I'll add to that list:
Unanswered questions by you:
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
The better CHOICE between Biden and Trump is an obvious one, yes?
Relative to the user whom I originally responded, America has more choice than most nations of the world, yes?
Who is closer to reality: "99.9% of people just don't want to become President because they have other interests and ambitions and life circumstances" or your claim, "99.9% CAN'T become President" because they are, in your words, "banned"?
Anyways, this has been an interesting conversation and appears to have been exhausted, I'll leave it there and oblige you with the final response.