this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
489 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3619 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
 

Vice President Harris boasts a 13-point lead over former President Trump among women voters in a new poll, a notable edge with a major voting bloc that could be critical for her ticket in November.

An Economist/YouGov poll taken this week found 51 percent of women who are registered voters said they support Harris, while 38 percent backed her Republican rival. On the other hand, Trump, who has struggled with women voters, saw a 7-point lead among men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Clinton's cult is completely incapable of even thinking that she was capable of earning the loss she earned.

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You assign a “cult” why?

Obama once said his campaign needed a billion dollars to win the presidency. No one thought twice in that statement.

So she has a cult? Why?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You're readin' more into my comment than I said. Go back and try again after ditching your assumptions.

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Or maybe answer the question rather than assigning assumptions to me.

Cult why?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Read my initial comment without your hackles up. Then read how you responded. That's part of it.

But if you would like another example to dismiss in bad faith, consider PUMA PAC. Clinton's supporters were so upset that she lost the '08 primaries that they formed a PAC to get McCain elected out of spite.

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok full stop…

“Hackles” is awesome. I’m gonna dig into hackles… sorry it’s mine now…

But really you complain that a PAC was formed?

Like given the Supreme Court decisions would you prefer dems not make pacs and just fold?

What’s the alternative? Dems make a PAC and become evil or the Supreme Court rules pacs rule and you now post how dems rolled over and did nothing?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

But really you complain that a PAC was formed?

Like given the Supreme Court decisions would you prefer dems not make pacs and just fold?

They formed a PAC with the express purpose of electing McCain.

And yes, use hackles all you want. I'd love to see it enter common usage.

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Electing McCain you say? Not splitting the vote, not playing the field.

Certainly they should practically ask Republicans to use those same tools… they should instead do nothing and take the “high ground” as you so graciously allow for dems to do… right?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Let me know if you decide to write coherently again.

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Man coherence would mean double for your political leanings. This shit is getting old (not us).

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Or not! Cause you don’t need to make sense. You just need to make a random sentence. But by all means tell the world how they don’t make sense.

Again coherence is a bridge too far for you. So by all means project away.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago