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
Slightly more plausible than Bluetooth eatings where she had a full team of writers instantly coming up with her responses, all agreeing on it, and relating it to her with zero delay...
The bluetooth one is crazy because have you ever tried to talk while you have a voice rambling in your ear?
It's not easy to focus.
Eh, a lot of scam preachers have infamously done just that. What makes it unrealistic is the practical range for Bluetooth. And even if they figured that out, since they were not inside her ears canals they'd be effectively speakers which the mic would catch.
HES USING SCIENCE AND LOGIC!!
BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!
Even then, like, am I the only person who isn't against candidates having an earpiece and a team helping them? When do you ever think the POTUS is alone and making split-second decisions? They'll always have an advisor or some type of council around them.
This is supposed to be a presidential debate, not a president and team debate.
Also at the end of the day it's the president that makes the decisions, not the team. You're supposed to evaluate them, in part, on their decision making capability.
I'd support it for fact checking alone. Give them a researcher in their ear who can search the internet for reliable references. It would discourage bullshitting on both sides, and someone like Trump would be instantly shut down.
Instead of an invisible fact-checking team, give them each a laptop (or phone) so they can do their own fact checks, and make the screens visible so we can see what sources they use.
I want to hear the candidates positions, not the positions his team thinks I want to hear.
Candidates often conceal their real intentions (or don't even know them).
W was alone for a while when deciding whether to put down My Pet Goat…
Man, if this had been the case I could have seen Biden doing much better in that first debate.
As improbable as the latter sounds, the former (supernatural powers) I consider to be impossible. And when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
.. which in this case is just that Harris is competent and the other guy is not. No supernatural witchcraft or impossible earbuds required.