this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
340 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19233 readers
1979 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Those who still want to vote for him will find any excuse to reject the evidence in front of their eyes

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A debate isn't for the true believers, it's for the absurdly uninformed dip shits who think it's centrist to half agree with autocracy and ethnic clensing. They always need more convincing, and motivation to actually show up and vote.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

But anyone who is uninformed to that level is completely unlikely to watch a debate. I mean, if they invested five minutes a night (maybe even a week) listening to the top news headlines, they wouldn't be undecided.

A debate is probably a waste of everyone's time other than for entertainment value and selling clicks.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

they’re gotten so accustomed to rejecting evidence that they’re now doing it preemptively. saying no to a second debate means there will be less evidence that they’ll have to reject later

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've watched my MIL completely lose all capability of critical thinking since becoming a trump supporter. She was a very smart person with good education and great street smarts, but by their words they didn't like when Obama met only with democratic party leadership shortly after becoming president, and therefore voted for trump in 2016. At the time they would've been split ticket voters, voting Trump for president, but vocally in opposition to our republican governor at the time. The by the pandemic they were spouting nonsense that was opposing basic germ theory (MIL was a nurse for a while!) and now all of her kids are socially and emotionally separating from her more and more. For someone with 4 kids who's all about their family, she sure is doing a great job of alienating her entire family!

So yeah, I strongly believe that becoming part of Trump's cult of personality harms peoples ability to think critically about anything based on my anecdata

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Trump is a symptom, not the problem, this has been happening for years with Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, the sane side of republican radio, there's unhinged full blown racism and fascism that's been on AM radio for decades. It fucks people up who listen to it. Same lies over and over and over.