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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
If Donnie had just stepped back and let Fauci and the professionals take over, he'd have won 2020.
Heck, he could ahve extorted billions out of the Saudis just by suggesting he might change US policy.
All his failures are about his pride.
Literally all he had to do was start selling red MAGA masks. Instead he encouraged millions of his supporters to avoid quarantine, dont wear masks, and take homey cures and it cost him the election. Wonder how many of the hundred thousand plus COVID deaths in Georgia were Trump supporters?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellisicky/2020/10/03/how-donald-trump-took-down-bonwit-teller-a-fifth-avenue-landmark/
My favorite Trump story. tl, dr is Trump was given a golden opportunity to impress the Manhattan elites and pissed it away through his own greed, arrogance, and sheer stupidity.
Also, John Barron makes a guest appearance!
Wow, I didn't know that. So sad.
We all love a chance to hear more from Mr. Barron!
If I had an interview with Trump, I wouldn't go after his big lies. I'd keep hammering away at all the little ones.
"Who is John Barron?"
"Who were the detectives you sent to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate."
"Why did you say you had walked in on the Miss Teen USA contestants?"
This are three that instantly come to mind, but I'm sure I could find hundreds more
I feel like anytime he’s face with facts, he changes the subject and starts rambling again. ~~Sea lioning~~ Gish Gallop I believe it’s called. Multiple reporters have tried to do what you suggest, but mostly it’s futile. His brain only knows how to construct incoherent rambling and insults.
One Axios reporter did do a good job once though iirc.
Edit: Gish Gallop is the term I was looking for, as gracefully pointed out below! Thank you!
https://youtu.be/RVnoc-ISUag
When he gets caught it's like a 3 year old who knows mommy won't spank him.
Gish Gallop is the term you're looking for.
Thank you. As often as I hear these terms, I still confuse which one is called what.
You're welcome!
Do you have a good way to keep these rhetorical techniques and/or logical fallacies straight? I often find myself in situations where I can describe them but not be able to connect each one’s proper name, even though I’ve tried to commit them to memory. It’s very frustrating and embarrassing.
I've just seen a lot of them. For me, it's about understanding the motivation and technique of the person doing the bullshit. As well as the reason for each name.
A Gish gallop was named after an actual politician named Gish who would famously continue to say ridiculous things until he overwhelmed his opponent.
Sealioning was named after a popular comic taking a random topic of sealions to describe the rhetorical trick of continually asking for proof or evidence of obvious things, or of an intentionally wrong version of an opponent's argument, until the opponent is frustrated into quitting.
Straw man is related to the idea of a literal straw man / scarecrow, an intentionally false and weak misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Something that seems real from a distance but isn't an actual threat and can be easily pushed over.
Reverse cargo cult is a complicated one that requires reading a couple of articles about what a cargo cult is (a real sociological phenomenon). But the gist is someone arguing that there's no such thing as truth, everyone lies, trying to change things is futile, and anyone who seems to be trying to do good is actually lying.
There's plenty of other tricks that don't have popular names (yet) and the best you can do is to describe them. But the first step is recognizing what the other person is trying to do.
This is helpful, thanks!
Isn't it wonderful we live in a world with so many differnet words for lying about politics?
[sarcasm]
He's way too stupid to see beyond a day or two in the future, so when covid hit cities and he realized dem voters were dying he came out against any protective measures. He couldn't understand that it would eventually mean more of his cultists would die off.
3,000,000 in the US. Most of those were in red states.
If he had the capability to put competent people in positions and then let them do their job, then he may have been a successful President instead of a raging nuclear tire fire.