this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
208 points (88.8% liked)

politics

30506 readers
2920 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You keep repeating the low credibility but you refuse to read with or engage with WHY they got that rating, and it wasn't for not presenting facts or making shit up, its purely ideological and how they PRESENT facts.

So how are they PRESENTING this that is making it biased? When they make a full report on it I expect it to be DEEPLY biased, but the video on it's own is very likely real. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

But I think you just read LOW CREDIBILITY and your brain shuts off and you cant suss out that there's a difference between actually presenting fake journalism and fake stories versus deeply misrepresenting what those facts mean. They got low credibility for BIAS, not FACTS.

Sorry I bothered to read their fucking reasoning and you won't

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What fact? There is no fact. The footage remains unverified. Not even Snopes could make it out. Seems EXACTLY like they described them -- taking a half-truth and distorting it to a full-lie.

That you slam your keyboard over and over because someone wants a better source than right-wing slop is wild, so I can only conclude you're a nazi simp.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Snopes confirmed the video's authenticity with the videographer who shot it. However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation.

Man you and this conservative media outlet have a lot in common with MISREPRESENTING FACTS

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No facts.

  • LOW CREDIBILITY

  • SNOPES: "However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation. "

I guess the "video was confirmed to be authentic" part doesnt matter at all...