this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
342 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
5682 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
 

Without evidence, the Republican vice presidential candidate tried to cast doubt on his opponent's obvious momentum: "If you talk to insiders in the Kamala Harris campaign, they're very worried about where they are"

You’ve heard Donald Trump cry “fakenews” too many times to count, and now his running mate is claiming — without evidence — that the media is using “fake polls” to show Vice President Kamala Harris is in the lead in the presidential race.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Sen. J.D. Vance alleged that “The media uses fake polls to drive down Republican turnout and to create dissension and conflict with Republican voters.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So what I'm not understanding, is what happens when they aren't elected and they remain unable to do basic math.

They seem to really putting all their eggs into the basket of "numbers are fake, do our bidding" but somehow fail to realize without the numbers they won't have support?

Like they really think they have enough weird dudes with too many guns to out gun and out fight the military that is currently under Biden's control?

Also, have they accounted for the fact that the number of armed crazies gets even smaller when the crazies realize they don't get paid for fighting?

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Like they really think they have enough weird dudes with too many guns to out gun and out fight the military that is currently under Biden’s control?

That is debatable. Yes, Biden is the CiC. But assuming that the military--which skews conservative (and enlisted people skew very conservative)--is going to follow orders across the board if there's a genuine civil war is perhaps a bit naive. The US Civil war saw a number of generals and higher-level officers defect to the CAS, and I would expect that we'd see the same kind of thing now.

My point is, it needs to be an undeniable win for Dems, something so overwhelming that there can't be any reasonable questions.

[–] snack_pack_rodriguez@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The military is more liberal than you think. Yeah their area shit heads in every org and a 18 year old private is always going to be stupid and buy that charger and say stupid shit. But the NCO rank and file are not the same old guard from the 80s and the army is making changes to appeal to GenZ to help with recruitment. E.G base name changes and leave requests for family planning, etc. But also Vets that have been down range got to know groups liked the Kurds and are very pissed what Trump did to them.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I just visited my ex-FiL at the VA hospital and he’s telling people that now that he’s sitting around watching TV, he realizeshr can no longer think of himself as Conservative because he’s liberal as hell relative to MAGAts

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

While I would hope so, I've known more than a few vets. A few are fairly moderate to liberal, but a whole bunch are MAGAts. Maybe that's just because I do as many 2-gun competitions as I can, and the MAGAt vet-bros are self-selecting to be there because they didn't do enough run-and-gun when they were in the military, IDK.

[–] snack_pack_rodriguez@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

yeah I can see that self selecting is to blame. Most of the Vets I know after I got out that are more liberal you can't even tell they are a Vet. It the people that make the military their core identity. Like the idiots that wear tactical gear and special forces t-shirts. Like the last thing I ever want to see is a plate carrier or ruck again lol. Those combat ball caps they sell at the VA are so cringe it's worse when they are under the age of 70 wearing them.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Like the last thing I ever want to see is a plate carrier or ruck again lol.

Ha, and I do it for fun. But I think that the plate + carrier loadout I wear in two gun is a lot lighter and less restrictive than the IOTV and full combat load. I also don't have people shooting at me or have to worry about frag, because 2-gun in fundamentally a game.

But even most of the vets I've known outside of that were generally more conservative than the general population. It could be the area I'm in; I'm in the deep south. But even when I was Illinois, the people that I knew were vets--and not the vet-bro stereotype--trended more conservative than not.

[–] snack_pack_rodriguez@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

lol you do you I guess I'm just not high speed, lol Were they active duty or retired? Also I noticed that Guard skewed more conservative than AD but don't know why. Honestly i think that might be my dad was republican so I guess I am too but that would align the same with civilian population.