this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
-96 points (5.6% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3252 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (45 children)

Well, Newsweek. That's really fucking weird of you to say that, because Activote sure isn't making that claim at all:

So now I'm REALLY fucking curious as to why this article exists, and the data is wrong. Also, Activote is an app, not a "real" polling platform.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Last couple of things I've seen from newsweek went hard right. I don't know when they became part of the propaganda machine, but it's severe.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yes, that's why I checked. It certainly seems there is a concerted effort in their behalf to be publishing positive news for Trump, that is later pointed out to be incorrect and retracted.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In the sixty-three days since this account was created, it has made five thousand one hundred and seven submissions

That averages out to once every seventeen minutes and forty-five seconds twenty-four hours seven days a week

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"They" are actually getting marginally faster over time. I am going to make an educated guess that their post frequency will continue to escalate the closer we get to the election. I'll leave it open for speculation why that might be so my comment doesn't get scrubbed...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They are enjoying the chaos they are creating in this community and it will get worse as the election get closer.

I wish they would just be banned until November 6th and see if they come back with the same posting frequency after.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Hard agree.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

"Various organisations in Nazi Germany required their members to swear oaths to Adolf Hitler by name, rather than to the German state"

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Monk's script:

  • "I didn't write the article, I just posted it", even though posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it
  • "I'm just posting articles that I found interesting", even though they can't ever explain what they find so interesting and will shut down if asked
  • "If you feel that the article is against the rules, let the mods know", even though no one said Monk was breaking the rules by posting propaganda. They like to post the mod log link after someone brings it up, for seemingly no reason.
  • "I'm not voting for Kamala or Trump", even though a vote for third parties is just going to empower a vote for Trump
  • "I'm not voting for [third party candidate], I'm voting for [third party candidate]"
  • Something about how they don't have to explain anything about themselves even though they reply anyway
  • Something about a community they created to seem more genuine
  • Some form of sarcastic or fake "thank you" even though no one asked for their thanks, all likely to appear nice at a passing glance
  • Using ":)" in another failed attempt to seem nice
  • Calling you "friend" in yet another misguided attempt to appear nice at the surface
  • Demanding proof for otherwise reasonable claims (sealioning).
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

A lot of their content are tortured contrivances to be able to respond with "no you," because they are emotionally a petulant child.

For example, regarding supporting a viable candidate instead of throwing a vote in the trash, they respond with, "every vote for your viable candidate harms the chances of [nonviable third party who isn't even on the ballots]."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

Websites that have banned this user:

It seems likely the reason each one banned him is the same reason their every post and comment is sitting at < -25. People detest the anti-democrat messaging and the way it’s delivered. It’s undeniable that this user rubs enough people the wrong way that they get a lot of attention for that alone.

During an election year especially, I expect better of any social media website than to just let this shit happen.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'm starting to notice a trend with your posts.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (11 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

So it looks like they have averaged over 28 downvotes per hour since they joined.

40678/(60*24) = 28.24861111111111111111111111

That's about a downvote every couple of minutes. If they weren't evil it might almost be impressive.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (6 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Nah, probably does it for free due to his (very poorly concealed) ideology.

And is almost certainly a cisgender, heterosexual male, and my bet is that they're actually Mormon.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›