this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
289 points (87.7% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2096 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I actually found one source (might have been the same place), and it "analyzes" Biden and Trump from 2020 based on their past policy stances and public statements; it shows Biden and Trump practically overlapping. This is based on some 62 questions they ask community members.

If someone honestly thinks that's a reasonable analysis of past and especially current stances, I weep for the state of skepticism and rational thought.

As a sidenote, if we look at the polling data the way it should be seen, it's interesting that those people are so far left that they feel like Biden and Trump are overlapping.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That sounds pretty ridiculous. Obviously the list of 62 questions was rigged to get that result. I would have asked questions such as "must a candidate win the election legitimately in order to enter a term of office?" And obviously supporters of each candidate would have a different answer to that one.

E: Add to that, thousands of daily government functions go on without any controversy. Like departments of weights and measures. There's no controversy about paying for 10 gallons of gas and getting 10 gallons of gas. Nobody complains that airplanes aren't falling out of the sky left and right. Perhaps that's how the questions trended. You know, like the Senate has a dragout on Supreme Court confirmations but confirms sometimes a dozen appointments in a single day, abassadors plenopentiary and district judges, etc.