this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1422 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4079 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
 

Cross-posted from "Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Kamala Harris: ‘I will always be an American before I am a Republican’" by @[email protected] in [email protected]


“I will always be an American before I am a Republican,” he wrote. “That’s why, this week, I am voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. I’m sharing it with all of you because I think there are a lot of you who feel like I do. You don’t recognise our country. And you are right to be furious.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You were the one trying to muddy the waters by saying there was "a lot to question about that plea agreement" and then going on to misrepresent the facts surrounding the corruption (such as falsely insisting that Schwarzenegger and Nunez weren't actually political cronies), not me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It was a minor aside. It was very obviously not the primary point of my reply. You chose to fixate on it. And you continue to do so. Seriously done with you now, chief. 👋

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Just a casual, minor aside of throwing the credibility of the conviction itself into question and then the casual, minor aside of falsely suggesting they aren't cronies. 💀

I guess it's harder for you to make the argument this wasn't patently corrupt when I actually challenge you on falsehoods completely misconstruing the very nature of the corruption, huh? You'd prefer I just ignore those and let them slip by, which like I get. I'd prefer it too if every game of soccer I played had no opposing goalie, but you don't need to be so transparently salty about wanting and failing to pilot the conversation away from pointing out your BS.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Arnold absolutely sucks for what he did, I have long pointed to it as one example of why he shouldn't be so glorified for not being completely insane as other Republicans.

That said, the other poster you're talking to is in the right here, you're ignoring the point entirely.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

As an third party from different country who has no idea of the topic or people involved, all I have to say that from outside perspective you're the "villain" in this conversation, so maybe chill out and consider things?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Do you stand by YOUR comment on how crooked this is, or do you admit that you exaggerated how corrupt these people are conpared to the worst of people we know to have been corrupt?

Just answering this question. A yes i exagerated or no this is actually as bad as corruption gets are great answers if you need examples to borrow