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
That headline is golden. But boy is it depressing that this is where we're at as a nation. And it's all because the GOP has been taken over by fascists and their army of useful idiots in tacky red hats.
What's depressing is if literally any of our institutions acted how they were supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue.
The 4th estate is failing the country because they've been bought by oligarchs.
The judicial apparatus is failing because it's been bought by oligarchs.
The political apparatus is failing because it's been bought by oligarchs.
Man I wish we could put our finger on the reason why everything is coming down around us...
It's awesome how we can trace so much evil back to Southern Strategy and Reaganomics.
It's very frustrating, yeah. All the progress this country was making was thwarted by a bunch of butt-hurt southerners and racists.
Hell, you can take it further back to the failure of Reconstruction and the resulting propaganda wave creating a massive reactionary base.
Remember when Dean had to drop out because he showed excitement about doing well?
Incredible, isn't it? Dean continues to be eviscerated.
To be fair, his campaign was already on the rocks at that point. It wasn't the scream alone that did him in.
Tobefaaaaair.
He sucked anyways.
He came to suck years later.
At the time he was considerably farther to the left than the rest of the field short of Dennis Kucinich. Opposition to the Iraq war was central to his campaign when half the party was still trying to justify it. He wanted to push universal healthcare before that was a common position within the party. He was on the cutting edge of promoting gay rights and was extremely popular in the gay community when that community didn't have the voice it does now. His stint as DNC chair built real party infrastructure and helped set the stage for Obama's 2008 run.
The country -- and the Democratic Party -- were considerably more conservative 20 years ago and he definitely helped push things toward where we are now.
That said, he's absolutely said and done some things in recent year that make it pretty clear he's not the progressive vanguard he was back then. He's stood still, and arguably regressed, while the country kept moving. It's unfortunate. But I think it's also a mistake to dismiss him outright; he was a pretty important figure in getting the party to where it is now.
🎵To Be Fay-aaah🎵
It's golden and also inaccurate.
Probation officers aren't assigned until somebody has been sentenced. This is a pre-sentencing investigation to see if he is eligible for probation.
If he's not, he doesn't meet with his probation officer until after he gets out of jail.
Actually I edited the italics for clarity.
Either way, this is an investigation with a probation officer.
He's not on probation yet, and may not be eligible and have to do straight time.
That's what I was trying to clarify that the headline implied. That he'd already been sentenced, when he hasn't.
Yes. Doesn't change the inaccuracies in the headline.
So.... Trump met with a probation officer that is assigned to his case currently. Right? So.... His probation officer.
Super curious. What about this hair makes you think you needed to split it(and edit your error without acknowledging its correction)?
The article title implies that he's already been sentenced and is on probation. That's what that string of words means. The probation officer he met with is doing a presentence investigation. They aren't assigned to him.
I.e. not his probation officer because he's not on probation because this is still pre-sentencing.
I edited italics for clarity. Don't be an ass.
Edit I also edited this post for clarity. Twice!
Well just under the headline the article states "pre-sentencing"
So you didn't take the time to understand the article, didn't take the opportunity to realize your lack of understanding of the various roles and duties of a New York probation officer, and still haven't, even though multiple inaccuracies in your statements have been pointed out to you.
Obtuse throughout.
Edit: engaging has been my mistake. I thought your original comment was in regards to the headline. This makes clear you are speaking to the article. Had I understood that, I would have not replied, as there would be little point.