"I'm just posting articles that I find interesting, I didn't write them! Nothing can be blamed on me even though I clearly have an agenda!"
Sorry, wanted to get that out of the way so you didn't need to bother with saying it.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
-91 points (7.5% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3555 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They are definitely a real person and not a team of people being (poorly) managed to post propaganda.
poorly
Is that why you're sure it's a single person? Because of the poor management?
I'm inclined to agree with you, but would be curious if you have additional info or data points.
I understand you post articles you find interesting. But this article does not jive with your supposed socialist beliefs. The article is literally calling Harris a Democratic Socialist, which would be a good thing.
Harris’s agenda is almost identical to that of the Democratic Socialists of America, who are anti-capitalists.
It talks about how her wanting to pass a bill that codifies Roe is her refusing to find common ground with anti-abortion crazies.
This article was written by Merril Matthew's who works for the Institute for Policy Innovation which is a think tank that, among other things, argues for less regulations to stimulate economic growth instead of any kind of stimulus or investment in the economy through the government, thinks we should reform (probably lower) taxes on insurance companies so they lower prices and "promote policies that create value-conscious shoppers in the health care marketplace.", and that we should have less regulations and government investment with energy production because they "believe that free people operating within a free economy using voluntary risk capital will out-innovate government-directed central planning funded by taxpayer dollars." They are very obviously a rather conservative think tank that is a piece of shit and thoroughly not socialists and I'd argue they think socialism is toxic.
They also have articles with such headlines as "What They Aren't Telling You in That Crime-Reduction Happy Talk" (where they try to argue while crime is down, its actually up in some areas and criminals are becoming more aggressive and you should still be scared of crime), "Overturning Chevron Deference" (where they talk about how overturning Chevron is a good thing), "Net Neutrality: Regulation for Ideology's Sake" (where they talk about how bad net neutrality is), "The Left's Newest (Old) Idea: Let's Build More Public Housing!" (Where they argue public housing is really bad and a horrible investment simply because its not well maintained due to federal funding being cut by republicans), and "About the 'Warmest Year in Recorded History'" (where they argue that humans MAY contribute to climate warming, but really it's not accurate to measure temps this way because we started measuring temps at a low point in global temperatures so there's really no way to know for sure if global warming is man made or even out of the ordinary. There's plenty more, but these were just in the first couple pages of their articles on their site.
So basically, this is an article written by a piece of shit who thinks that it's bad to codify Roe and that regulations are all bad and who thinks that socialism is bad.
Why post this when it's written by someone who is literally counter to your beliefs? Is it just because it's anti Harris? Cause you should have a higher standard than that.
This user is one of the larger frauds anyone has seen on social media. They aren't on Lemmy for any reason besides encouraging trump votes.
What a stoopid article
I like The Hill and they usually have good pieces.
This one - well, it's an opinion piece but it's a bit different from the usual fare. (The author appears to be a conservative writer.)
Actually, it's kinda posting both my hope and something I want to keep down - that Harris is likely more liberal than she's painting herself to be in late 2024 (the hope), which implicitly would be a good reason for conservatives or even conservative-leaning moderates to either vote for another or sit this one out (no! keep that down!).