this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
724 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22431 readers
3593 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accused Bernie Sanders of taking millions from Big Pharma during a heated exchange, but Sanders refuted the claim, stating his donations came from workers, not corporate PACs.

Kennedy repeatedly insisted Sanders was the top recipient of pharmaceutical money in 2020, but financial data shows no corporate PAC contributions to Sanders.

Meanwhile, Kennedy has profited from anti-vaccine activism, earning millions from lawsuits and speaking fees.

The debate ended without Kennedy answering whether he would guarantee health care for all as HHS secretary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You should, or the point you make is we shouldn't listen to your point because you are barely literate 🤷?

Any machine you can write a lemmy comment on can also spell check. Not checking means you don't give a shit about what you write, so why should anyone else?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Point out the flaw in my argument? The whole point of writing is communication. If my message is received it did its job. I especially don’t give a shit about spelling on here because this is an anonymous account that I just shoot the breeze from.

But on a larger point codified grammar, spelling, etc are all just class signifiers that have literally nothing to do with clear communication or intelligence. Language is fluid by its very nature and spelling is as well. It behooves the reader to ignore things you find unintelligent based on superficial nonsense. Trying to understand a writers point based on their arguments is a much better strategy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No no no.

I didn't read your comment or your argument. I won't because I don't give a shit for one, and for two if you don't give a shit enough to proofread it it's obviously not worth the time.

You can descriptive grammar yourself right to the downvotes and don't give a shit pile. Sorry bout ya. It's "dumbesk".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You made my point:

It behooves the reader to ignore things you find unintelligent

And the rest of it makes no sense anyway because I don't think you can define "behoove".

[–] RedditRefugee69 2 points 1 month ago

y mak many wurd wen u cn rd dis wel enuf rite? bro i ttly get u, dis idnt evn hrd 2 rede lyk at al

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

None of what you say is untrue, but if you don't conform to codified grammar, then you'll get harangued by a bunch of grammar apes that freak out as soon as you misspell something relatively minor, like -esque to -esk. Or you'll even just find yourself getting hit with a bunch of clarifying questions about what your specific spelling actually was. So oftentimes it's actually more fluid, and more clear, to use language that's more codified.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Hot take, their original reply was right and the only mistake they made was spending energy engaging further

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, yeah, you're right, feeding the troll is kind of a classic blunder, but I still think it makes sense not to go out of your way to give them any ammunition. Maybe I come off as a little victim blamey, but I don't think it's that serious