this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
394 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3534 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz is getting a more positive public reception than his Republican counterpart: More Americans see Walz favorably than unfavorably, contrary to JD Vance, and more approve of Walz's selection for the nation's No. 2 job, according to new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.

Thirty-nine percent in the poll have a favorable impression of Walz as a person, while 30% see him unfavorably. That compares with an underwater favorable-unfavorable rating for Vance, 32%-42%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Conservatism is fucking weird. They spend their lives obsessed with gender, race, religion, guns, and children — like a communicable disease of authoritarian narcissistic pedophilia — while calling the people who want to conserve the Earth "radical".

It's a mental illness.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

As a millennial bridging the zoomers and boomers I think what Walz really meant to say is Conservatism is cringe. If Republicans were savvy they could flip the weird narrative and embrace it because weird can be good but fortunately they are not. Can't flip cringe.

Trump & Friends are cringe, gross, and absurd to me.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Conservatives value conformity, which is why 'weird' works so well to insult them.

It's only insulting because they believe it is; call most leftists weird and they'll probably say something like "Yeah I'm weird, fuck normal."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

You know that's a great point! Conformity essential to being with the in-group of conservatives. That shifts my view substantially on this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Classic Gen X'er... Boomer-lite hahaha. Ok sorry that was too far.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Y'all forgot we even existed, and now you deign to throw shade?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Gen x doesnt exist, they’re either boomers or millennials.

Depends on how cool they are.

(/j)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

continued glare

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Hahaha. I mean technically millennials are still the largest segment of the bridge connecting zoomers to boomers, but yeah... My bad..

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But they can’t flip that narrative, it’s anathema to them. Between the “silent majority” bullshit and their fake idealized past (women and minorities knew their place, queer folks would get the queer beaten out of them) they cling to the idea that their view is correct and how things should be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

their fake idolized past

Don't forget guns. These people went so full moron, that they straight up forgot that the original gun laws in the Americas was purpossive open carry only, no habitual open carry. If you weren't a banker, a cattleman, a sheriff, or the like, or if nobody had threatened your life, and your jacket blew open in the breeze and allowed the public to see that you were carrying a gun, you would have been arrested for breach of peace. Because it's fucking weird to show up at the bar or at a grocery store or whatever with a gun for no reason.

There are dozens of early legal cases in this country that prove these facts, and you can also reference the constitutions of the original colonies, none of which enshrined a individual right to carry firearms. You can also reference the Philadelphia constitutional convention where a version of the second Amendment containing an Express individual right was unanimously rejected by the delegates in favor of our current version.

The second amendment itself even tells you right in the sentence what its purpose is, and It's "the security of the state," not the individual. An individual right to bear arms does not redeem a state security interest, a ready militia does, though. that's my Ted talk.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

And they're always misquoting the Constitution and the Bible.