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
After going after cat owners first, they're now going after the dog people demographic. Good coverage there for making literally everybody dislike them.
These people are damn determined to make everybody else as miserable as them.
They would like to remind everyone that dogs are not allowed in the dog park. People are not allowed in the dog park. It is possible you will see hooded figures in the dog park. Do not approach them. Do not approach the dog park. The fence is electrified and highly dangerous. Try not to look at the dog park and especially do not look for any period of time at the hooded figures. The dog park will not harm you.
This sounds like an SCP entry
Welcome to Nightvale podcast, episode 1. Highly recommend.
Dude shaking fat asses' hand in the thumbnail looks like the bad guy from Con Air
Cyrus The Virus. What a great 90s villain. Upvote for the Con Air reference.
what is it about the dog parks that need to be included in a presidential election debate?
We're talking about parks for dogs, right? Like dog owners can go there and meet other dogs owners with their dogs? Or there's something I don't know?
It's because they want people popping out (white) babies instead of enjoying a dog.
My wife and I have dogs because we love our dogs, we don't have children due to medical limitations. Guess we're the scourge of society, despite our contributions to society by way of charity, being involved in our communities, and helping wherever we can, which wouldn't be possible with kids due to time constraints.
Going after dog owners is a strategy.
“It’s a bold move Cotton, let’s see if it pays off.”
Think about the oldest conservative Supreme Court Justice, they've been after this stuff for longer than that. If you're ever tempted to rose colour the past, or think they've changed, remember how long ago those justices that struck down Roe were elevated.
So that's who Kristi Noem was pandering too.
The more I learn about these people and project 2025 the more angry I get with our society that we are so polite and so moral that we allow them to continue to draw breath.
I really cannot believe not one person has tried to kill these people. If anyone deserved to be put in front of a firing squad, these people do... To hell with moral high ground, to hell with being polite. We're too tolerant of their intolerance.
This isn't about dogs btw... My comment is about project 2025 and the heritage foundation in it's entirety, not just the content of this post. I've learned more than I care to know already today and it has left me in a blind rage.
Media Matters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Matters:MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.mediamatters.org/kevin-roberts/delayed-publication-heritage-presidents-book-reflects-project-2025-shell-gameDog parks really? Do they want to flaunt their dogs everywhere they go?