-20 points

Unfortunately, it looks like Trump is headed for a landslide unless something significant happens within the next few weeks. Buckle up!

permalink
report
reply
20 points

“…unless something significant happens…”

Yeah, like all of us voting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Sure, but Democrats seem very easy to discourage into not voting compared to conservatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Are you easily discouraged? Do you stamp your feet an yell when you don’t get 100% your way, 100% of the time? Or do you recognize that other people exist and have different needs and wants?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

One is a cult of press-stamped NPCs, the other is a massively varied collection of people that want everything their way or they are taking their ball and going home. It is a rough position to be in when your party has to cover “everyone that isn’t a conservative”…it’s a huge majority of people to gather up under one umbrella.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

All of us were always going to vote… Let’s be honest. But that’s not going to be enough. Biden needs millions of young progressives to turn up and vote for him, but to get them to do that, he’s going to need to start meeting them halfway, instead of continuing to meet Republicans/fascists halfway.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

If they choose the vote for trump with more steps by not voting blue, I hold them fully accountable. Sorry.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Because it couldn’t possibly be that we ALL need to compromise to make this work. Biden, as far as I’m concerned, did in fact meet us at least part way. Not even close to where I’d want but not nothing either. And in doing so probably alienated more conservative voters. So they didn’t get everything they wanted and neither did we. But in the process we all got some of what what we wanted.

If “kids these days” can’t figure out that democracy is fundamentally a compromise in which nobody is 100% happy then truly we’re fucked.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

No, he isnt, thats just fear feeding fear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

Or is this naive optimism? We HOPE he isn’t, but all signs indicate OP of this comment is correct. Don’t bury your head in the sand. Recognize the reality and keep fighting to turn it around. And definitely DO NOT join in the gaslighting bullshit. Biden didn’t just “have a bad debate night”. He’s senile and has dementia… Don’t try to pretend he doesn’t. Stick to the fact that at least with him we’ll get a not batshit insane cabinet, and at least the government will be fighting against the fascists in the upcoming civil war, instead of fighting with them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Current polls show Trump gained a slight advantage after the disaster of a debate. Most voters don’t seem to be supporting Biden, so much as not supporting Trump. So it’s still a stupidly close race. Not to mention current polling is based on turnout from 2020 with some educated guesses, that have all undercounted Dem votes in every election since then.

The outlook isn’t good, but Trump is further from win than is immediately obvious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I hope you learn to appreciate the irony of burying your head in the sand while you tell others not to bury their heads in the sand. Reality is exactly what I recognize.

Fear feeding fear. Stop it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not according to anything I have seen. He is slightly ahead in the polls by less than half the margin of error of said polls (which are rarely accurate, but more of a weathervain)…so…

permalink
report
parent
reply
79 points

If you think Trump’s Agenda 47 is scary, take a look at Trump’s Rule 34.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

If you think Trump’s Rule 34 is scary, take a look at Trump’s Order 66.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I know what this is but I’m still kind of curious to look. But I’ll never unsee goatse or tub girl so I’ll refrain. There is only so much eyebleach.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Believe me, it exists.

A lot of it is Biden x Trump or Trump x Biden too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Can we just call it Order 66 and be done with it?

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Those dorks are far nerdier than that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
121 points

Remember these same assholes that started this shit in the 90’s about the “Gay Agenda” converting all the children? According to that very same fear mongering, we’re all supposed to be gay by now, cuz that’s how that works…

permalink
report
reply
-40 points

From a purely numbers standpoint, aren’t they kind of fight?

Not many gay people were “out” in the 90s. Tons of gay people out today.

So from a recordable numbers standpoint, the number of known gay people HAS gone up drastically since then.

I think the bigger question to that fear mongering would be:

“Yeah? And?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

…you’re either an idiot, or trolling. Either way, you deserve the downvotes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

How am I an idiot for saying that census data shows more people admitting to being gay, and it not being a problem?

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points
*

They’re not right because they numbers didn’t go up from conversion. They went up because people could admit who they are without fear of violence. The true number didn’t change, we just became capable of getting a more accurate count.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Thats exactly what I just said though…

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Right, I think this is the point that the above comment is making as well. That the numbers of publicly/out gay people went up because of a more accurate count thanks to a less hostile sociopolitical climate.

I think the point that’s being confused in that comment is that the fear mongering was obviously bullshit, and modern bigots pointing at any increase in LGBTQ+ identification nowadays may continue to use those statistics as justification for anti-LGBTQ+ platforms. Instead of engaging that argument that the hate mongers have always known is in bad faith, it’s much more to the point nowadays to make them explain what they think is wrong with increased LQBTQ+ identification, or as the original comment put it, “Yeah, and?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

“We wouldn’t have so much Covid in America if we’d quit testing.”

Yeah, that tracks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

My god, the downvotes. Had the same thought. No one was out in the 80s and 90s, I was there. I can see idiots thinking people were converted, hence the rise in numbers.

I think the vast majority of people are saying, “Yeah? And?” People generally don’t give a shit any longer. Notice the conservatives aren’t banging the gay-hate drum and have pivoted to trans people?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

TBF they are often caught banging the gays like drums…they needed a new enemy that they haven’t got caught banging repeatedly. So much self-loathing in that party.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

All those people were always gay though. They’re just safe enough now to say it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What numbers database are you referencing? Is there a GayTaBank somewhere that I need to know about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I said it multiple times. The census. They know which areas have whom living where. They track all that. And they track when people move in or out, but not context as to why. So from their perspective there’s this sudden burst over 20 years of gay people popping up, not realizing they didn’t just pop up, or suddenly turn gay. They’ve always been there, just not recorded as such. So now they have to find ways to explain that. This coming from the same people who explain what happens on this planet as being done by an invisable man in the sky, who controls everything, has all knowledge of all things at all times, but somehow just can’t balance a budget He needs money. Always needs money. 10% of your income has to go to the sky man to pay for clouds or something. It’s never explained why these tax exempt churches need so much money.

…and these are the people explaining these shifts in numbers to roughly half the country. Now despite the fact that I would NOT say that half the country is homophobic, their leaders sure are! So even if they personally have nothing against gay people, their politicians used scare tactics for years trying to condition their base to be homophobic. The problem is, they aren’'t. At least not overwhelming majorities. So the gay people started coming out. But that goes against the leaders talking points. They couldn’t have been gay the whole time, because that would mean they were wrong. If they’re wrong, then they have no political power. And so now they have to explain the census data.

There’s tons of gay people, coast to coast, and there’s no appocolypse. There’s no great doom. Nothing happened. And that threatens their position.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

We would be if not for their efforts

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Oh?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It couldn’t be that they were wrong right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

/s, hey, you dropped this

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’d rather not ruin the joke by screaming “it’s a prank bro”

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Ii was hoping that I misread the title and that it was actually trump vs agent 47

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments