686
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
686 points (99.6% liked)
politics
20436 readers
3901 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trigger word? I was asking why they are trying to tie an authoritarian move to a president who left office in the way a democratic Republic set up over 2 terms ago.
Have fun with your buzzwords.
You seem very confused about the text quoted by the previous poster.
How so?
Because you seem to imply that there’s something nefarious about citing Obama to describe that the US Digital Service office was established during the Obama presidency, when it’s just what happened.
The point of the copied text was to point out those workers were not newly hired and realizing they didn't want to participate in bad acts, they were employees that existed prior to this administration and quit because they didn't want to take part in bad acts.
At no point do we hear that the employees worked for that company for at least 9 years, meaning that Obama starting the US Digital Service office is irrelevant. They could have started 2 years ago, 7 years ago or 9 years ago, that information is unknown so to tie it to the Obama Administration was chosen for a reason. I don't say the IRS started by the Abraham Lincoln has seen the O'Donnell resignation unless I am specifically trying to call attention to Lincoln.
It's just a weird choice to bring it up
You were mistaken about contextual intent and now have leaned into your incorrect inference reaction full Reddit style.
It's ok, it happens, no need to to keep spinning plates.
If you read something and don't question why information not contextually obligated to be there is there, you will completely ignore bias and propagandas existence within text. Just because we agree with the bias of this article doesn't mean I or anyone else shouldn't question the intent.
They weren't. They were responding to the FAFO comments about the people who resigned in protest.