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
You know when the ML’s say “scratch a liberal and …,” it’s that. That’s what you are seeing. Liberals will always defer to fascism in support of corporate interests.
What do ML's say about Khmer Rouge and Xinjiang?
Here’s some cream for that itch.
What do ML's say about the Khmer Rouge? Haven't seen discussion of it myself, maybe you can provide me with a link?
Generally they say that it was Vietnam, a socialist/communist country, that went in to stop the Khmer Rouge, which is true.
Nothing
If you pressure them long enough they admit they consider them justified genocides
Wow, really? I certainly wouldn't want to hang around people who consider the Khmer Rouge's genocide to be justified, maybe I made an account on the wrong instance. I mean, assuming that actually happened.
In fact, I promise I will not only delete my account right now, but also never post on the fediverse again if you can provide a link to what you just claimed regarding the Khmer Rouge. Should be easy, right?
Providing a link is easy. Providing something you'd yourself strictly agree with is harder. Providing a link that the opponent won't discard if they want to discard it is possible, but unlikely. I've reached that last point with ML's for a few times.
That's just what fascists say.
No idea what you're talking about. Have you, or have you not, seen an ML call the Cambodian genocide "justified?" There's nothing for me to "strictly agree with" or "discard," if you've seen someone say that, then all you have to do is show me, and there's no room for disagreement.
Great, where's the link?
Fascists question whether ML's call the Cambodian genocide justified? Wtf are you talking about?
Oh, I get it. Now that you've been caught in a lie, you're trying to pretend that I was asking for proof of the genocide itself, as opposed to what I actually asked for, which is proof of an ML calling it "justified." Nice bit of weaseling.
Let's be absolutely clear - the Cambodian genocide happened and was not justified, and @[email protected] and @[email protected] are blatantly lying and making things up by claiming to have seen MLs call it justified.
Yes, after calling it "putting unfavorable elements\burgeoisie\vermin to the wall" or something like that.
Just like I have seen the same with Stalin's repressions in USSR.
I don't keep links for things I don't need.
Do you keep links of your conversations on the Web?
Weaseling is what you are doing in this quote. I openly say that I don't respect you and thus don't bother following your turns.
Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case. Maybe you are bad with math and probabilities.
You could argue about this being commonplace or not, but since you are accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in, I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.
This website has a search function. Searching "Khmer Rouge Justified" returns precisely 5 comments, none of which were claiming it was justified or responding to someone claiming it was justified. "Khmer Rouge Wall" likewise turned up nothing of note. Liar.
Great! Anyone is welcome to chime in and provide evidence. Where is it? Liar.
That... that's not at all contradictory lmao. Liar.
Given your comments about how drowning puppies is justified, which everyone's definitely seen but which I have precisely zero evidence of, I think you're the one everyone has a measure of.
How could you say that?
Puppies? Really? Wow.
Ofc, I won't provide evidence, because as you're a puppy murderer, I don't respect you and won't play by your terms. Liar.
Now think further. You are so fucking close to the answer. This website.
Also why waste time looking for something? I'll still be right, it'll only affect what you think.
Well, because I don't respect you, I don't care. So dunno what was this supposed to tell me. That you are running around asking from people evidence of what they've seen a few months ago and they won't? That's expected.
Liar.
Something a liar always says first
Liar.
Sorry, I don't want to be responsible for you leaving the Fediverse
Liberals and making shit up to punch left, name a more iconic duo.
Y'all never have the receipts for anything you say. Bunch of messy little drama queens.