this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
619 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4596 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Scientific American

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They did, because Mr. Rogers defended it. If he hadn't been there to step up it likely would have been cut.

That's the problem. You get one party in power who doesn't like it for some reason, it's gone.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What you’ve shown is the system -democracy - working as intended. I’m not sure how that’s a criticism.

That’s the problem. You get one party in power who doesn’t like it for some reason, it’s gone.

except your “evidence” proves the exact opposite.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kinda like how Reagan removed the fairness doctrine... Oh, sure, any ol' President could have it restored... 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, 2+ years of Biden... Hey, it's only been since 1987... 36 years... I'm sure it will be back any day now...

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

what does that have to do with government funding of journalism?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away... and if the counter is "But it can be restored too..."

Yeah, still waiting on the Fairness Doctrine, which, yeah, also has a direct impact on journalism.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My argument is that anything the government grants you can also be taken away… and if the counter is “But it can be restored too…”

it’s easy to win your own arguments when you put words in my mouth. why even bother pretending to have a debate when all you want is to put on a performance?

you can wallow in defeatist nihilism. I have better things to do.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

this is why we protect the speech and the journalism.. it's like the whole vaccine argument all over again..