this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
842 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3454 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 163 points 8 months ago (165 children)

So, just to be certain, when USA today keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and uses words in this article like, riot, and alleged role, they're carrying water for him right? The man has been found to have had a role andtaken part in an insurrection in multiple cases now. They should just say it.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Man is guilty as sin but just to play devil's advocate for the press: they are subject to libel laws and cannot make definitive statements of guilt/non guilt or else risk being sued.

So on the one hand it's dumb that they aren't telling it like it is but on the other hand I sympathize that they don't want to put their finances on the line to pay the Donald Trump legal fund if he decides to sue.

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

They can definitively state that he was found guilty for his hand in the insurrection, as per the multiple cases. There’s no room for libel there, it’s a fact. He was found guilty.

They don’t need to beat around the bushes about it.

Edit: it’s not libel, they’re afraid of. It’s being on the wrong end of politics, share holders, and a potential authoritarian anti-journalism president.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To my knowledge he hasn't been found guilty in trial court yet, has he? Courts keep kicking the can down the road because the US justice system is a sham. If he was found guilty already, he'd be behind bars.

Basically, there are differences between the recommendations of investigation committees, eligibility to run for office, and a conviction. Just because some determination was made by a court or by a legal body doesn't necessarily mean he was found guilty of the crime. Not yet at least.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Colorado trial and supreme Court found that he has "engaged in" an insurrection. I've got a link to the Supreme Court opinion in this thread.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You would think journalism would be subject to libel laws, but after seeing Fox and company blast lies for decades, I don't have that confidence.

Yes, Fox finally got hit with one major lawsuit for one massive lie, but given all the lies they've run, it shows how far past the line you need to go.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And only because they lied about a massive corporation who then turned around and sued them. Not everyone they lie about has a legal team on retainer ready to defend them. In this case, Trump can’t find lawyers willing to defend him at this point, but Fox News would never paint Trump in a bad light, it would alienate their viewer base

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

Yes and I would agree if he were before the court for the first time, but multiple judges have already made a determination in those things.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They don't want to be on the bad side of the possible future dictator of America.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

You mean their Republican donors?

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

alleged role,

Until he's been criminally convicted for it, it's "alleged" in order to avoid defamation and libel cases.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 20 points 8 months ago (11 children)

He was found by a trial and state supreme Court to have engaged in an insurrection. It's not alleged.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

That's how these people are taking advantage of our open, democratic system. They're acting in bad faith, but our system has to play along and treat them "fairly" to avoid giving them any potential out or ammunition for them say they're being discriminated against or treated improperly. It's such BS though, we're having to bend over backwards to treat these people with kid gloves while they run roughshod over our democratic system and they will literally not treat others fairly when they get power. This man and all his enablers in Congress/Scotus need to be in shackles already, they're a shit stain on history and they're getting people killed in Ukraine by holding up US aid.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Greedy, don’t forget greedy

load more comments (160 replies)