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.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Another negative piece about Hillary is back on top of v/politics, and as usual, it's from a Republican partisan source.
The bad taste is hypocrisy. National Review has no problem with the speaking fees unless it is a Democrat, and particularly Hillary Clinton taking them. In fact, National Review's tendency is to support these "private" deals.
I know from being here that most of us in the v/politics section of Voat are independents, so why are we letting ourselves be used in such a transparently partisan way? Honest critical pieces about Hillary can certainly be found. It's not like the partisan sites are the only ones reporting on her. In fact, the nonpartisan sites do a much better job.
Take a look at some other National Review articles which you can find in the search engine.
"Dick Cheney: CIA Torture Report ‘Full of Crap’" -- the site does nothing but repeat Cheney's assertions.
"Bush Didn’t Lie." This one's rich. National Review still peddling WMDs!
Seriously, you can't find something critical of Hillary that's not a partisan hit piece?
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] flyawayhigh ago (edited ago)
I read the story. It's spammed the entire internet. Koch brothers and Exxon money is hard at work. There's a pretty good chance they paid the protestors too, I can't even get to much other than this story repeated and a few Democratic partisan replies like this one, Fox News Scandalizes Hillary Clinton's Speaking Fee At UNLV, when I run a keyword search.
Sure, some more than others. Fair.org presents some excellent statistical studies to quantify biases.
I'm not saying don't go after Hillary. All I am saying is ... Let's try to avoid the corporate partisan spam machine when doing so. Why? Because that benefits those partisans with both credibility to say "Bush didn't lie," and with link juice to help the spamming efforts.
If you want some practically-over-the-top criticism of Hillary or Obama, You know where to go: Webster Tarpley! :D
And many more.