this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
-46 points (8.9% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3978 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
 

Side-by-Side Comparison Chart of Presidential Canidates

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Vis a vis Trump, comparisons of this sort are effectively meaningless. He doesn’t actually have any real policy principles that he stands by other than maximizing the amount of money he can gather, staying out of jail, and acting like a mafia don. Dude’s a straight fascist, amongst many other terrible things. Juxtaposing him with serious politicians in this fashion is essentially sanewashing him. It’s disingenuous, and actively harmful to our electoral process and democracy, to not call a fascist a fascist.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 1 month ago

and lets not forget the endless lying. any policy he has now can be thrown out on a whim or if he sees any gain to changing it. It will only stay if it provides him significant value which most won't have any value if he gets elected.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Are you fucking kidding with this shit?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

"Has a chance at winning:"

PRO CON CON PRO

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Procon.org - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Procon.org:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://2024election.procon.org/side-by-side-comparison-chart/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America

wow

Looking at the comments to this website's comparison of the election's candidates this year shows how much Democrats and Republicans both are against nonbiased, factual reporting