this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
194 points (95.3% liked)

politics

30703 readers
1674 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
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. Remember? They tried that:

After deleting the original statement, we promptly asked about submitting the post for approval through the proper channels so that it could be reposted. At this point, ODP staff informed us that a meeting with Acton was on the table. After thorough discussion, caucus leadership determined this offer aligned with our goal to bring our message directly to her.

They got tricked into attending a meeting without Acton. And some of them weren't allowed into the meeting.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You keep using this quote -- have you actually read it?

They asked about submitting the post for approval and they were offered a meeting with Acton.

That's what it says.

You're making the positive claim that they were told they cannot resubmit the post for approval. That quote does not demonstrate that to be the case.

Do you understand that yet? Or do we have to loop around again?

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They asked about submitting the post for approval

...which was ignored. Instead:

they were offered a meeting with Acton.

...which turned out to be a lie.

Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

the Ohio Democratic Party had demanded the criticism be removed. The caucus protested, appealed, but then relented. The criticism never went back up.

It was banned.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

which was ignored

Does not appear in the quote. If you have another source for that claim, it's weird that you haven't shared it by now.

Where do you get the idea that they were allowed to resubmit the post?

Fair, I'll rephrase: you cannot demonstrate that they were not allowed to resubmit the post.

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I do not have a facebook account to see the group page for myself. According to the article, the criticism was not reposted. It was banned there, as reflected by the headline.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So you don't know.

Like I've said on every loop.

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know what the article and the headline say. Your initial criticism is still invalid.

Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know what the article and the headline say

Congratulations?

Your initial criticism is still invalid.

It's not.

Can you find a source that says they were allowed to resubmit the post?

Why would I do that when it's not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why would I do that when it's not my claim? The onus is on you to show that they were disallowed.

If you can disprove the contents of the article you chose to criticize, please do.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 week ago

Disprove what about them, beyond what I already have?