This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] ShowMeThePunny [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Interesting read, but one of the paragraphs in the story really misses the mark.
It failed to mention that the judge had a prior personal relationship with the president and failed to recuse herself. It didn't explicitly mention, but the trial dragged on for 4.5 years of Clinton fighting the charges... including notoriously lying under oath, before settling out of court for more than she was asking for.
But the worst thing is imagine trying to claim that someone who went through what Paula did and saying she "could not demonstrate what damages were caused" now in 2016. Was she "asking for it"?