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
so what was the point of the comment?
The point is any political candidate with massive debt needs to have their finances watched carefully just in case that debt disappears.
Then there needs to be an investigation into who, exactly, just bought that candidate.
See:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-supreme-court-judge-brett-kavanaughs-100k-debt-disappear-1785043
"In 2016, Kavanaugh reported in a financial disclosure owing between $60,004 and $200,000 in credit card and loan debt. But, as reported by Mother Jones, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court that debt had gone."
Who paid it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
but the biden/obama/clinton/pelosi/schiff family wealth needs no investigation?
it's not just debts. it's any money.
maybe i'm naive, but i don't believe you could buy cornel west. i would doubt mysef if he wins the green nomination, drops out, and backs biden. i don't know anything else that might shake my faith is his character.
I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation.
meh. i don't think it's worth the energy of even saying "there ought to be an investigation" of any of them, myself. i'm saying that you're looking at the wrong person to start hunting out corruption.
It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office.
i think we should start with anyone in public office, pretty much endlessly. let's root out corruption where it has actually taken place, not where it MIGHT.
Oh, definitely, the problem with that, as we're seeing with the Supreme Court, it's the people in power who are deciding the rules.
Now we could make a change with some form of anti-corruption constitutional amendment, but that requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate and we can't even get 60 votes to break a filibuster much less the 67 needed for an amendment.