109
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
109 points (91.0% liked)
politics
19260 readers
1923 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Actually yes they did vote trump, studies show that only 20% voted harris. Not to mention the article quite literally is quoting these folks' justification for voting trump. The remainder was split between the green party (you know that party that doesn't do ANY down ballot initiatives and only shows up in swing states in presidential elections) and trump.
This is ignoring the fact that not voting in a swing state is pretty much the same thing as voting for the other person because the race is so close.
It didn't help trump directly but it did help him win.
Despite breathless accusations by idiots, not voting does not equal a vote for the other side.
It absolutely does in a two party duopoly in a swing state. Stop trying to be right and look at the reality of the situation.
Nope. Hold on, let's wait a minute and see... Still no.
It turns out that you have to earn your votes in a democracy. I know that seems weird but it's true.
You're using a strawman here. Man, why are logical fallacies so pervasive here? Never said you don't need to earn votes. I said that not voting for a candidate in a two party duopoly in a swing state is the same as actually voting for candidate because the race is so close. You're welcome to try again though.
No it's a conspiracy, I asked time very nicely if I could use them as part of my joke.
And I am sorry if I went over your head but let me keep this simple. I don't owe the Democratic party shit. If they aren't worth voting for then people aren't going to vote. And that's nobody's problem but the Democratic party. It's not a vote for Trump, or Hitler, or the lizard people. Only a vote for them is a vote for them. And telling people they must vote for the Democrats or else they're a dirty fascist is ridiculous. They're going to laugh at you. And rightly so.
As opposed to how many Trump voters and how many non/third party voters?
Dearborn election results:
Love it when someones sea lioning leads to getting facts put in their face, beautiful. Chefs kiss.
They didn't answer the question. Or they answered only the bit that backs their point and ignored the question.
How many people didn't vote is the more important metric here.
Also using the phrase sea lioning for people pointing out that genociding a requisite party of a winning coalition in a swing state is bad electoral strategy is both pathetically sad, and disgusting.
Genocide is not something that can be sea looked, and if you think it is then you're perfectly fine with genocide.
Sorry. My bad, the sea lioning is actually occuring in this comment I replied to.
Yet another bad faith strawman. For fucks sake lemmy, you all can't be this bad at debating, quite amazing.
What a stupid thing to say, you can 100% sea lion about anything including genocide (hello? Holocaust deniers, Moron)
And they did answer the question you asked. Perhaps of you weren't lazy and actually wrote out two sentences, it might not have been overlooked. The voter turnout was about 50% (53%) which was less than national average.
You actually need to learn the various types of logical fallacies. Just calling everything strawmanning just makes you look like a Raman that started, but didn't finish, Logic 101.
You're also not worth more than two sentences.