this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
516 points (98.0% liked)

politics

26894 readers
2098 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
 

Economic concerns and growing disenchantment with both parties is draining support for Trump among Gen Z young men, a key bloc of support during the 2024 election

Male Gen Z voters are breaking with Donald Trump and the Republican party at large, recent polls show, less than a year after this same cohort defied convention and made a surprise shift right, helping Trump win the 2024 election.

Taken with wider polling suggesting Democrats will lead in the midterms, the findings on young men spell serious trouble for the Republican Party in 2026.

Younger Gen Z men, those born between 2002 and 2007, may be even more anti-Trump, according to October research from YouGov and the Young Men’s Research Project, a potential sign that their time living through the social upheavals of the Covid pandemic and not being political aware during the first Trump administration may be shaping their experience.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

If you run for the Racism Party™ as a person who has an anti-racist position, do you think you will be nominated? Maybe in an incredibly fringe case, but most of the time you will not be.

Well, I'm not sure why I'd even be running for a nomination to your "Racism Party™", but I would be pretty unsurprised when I didn't win.

And then what do you do when you’re not nominated?

I don't understand why you'd have me running in that party in the first place so I don't know what answer you're fishing for here.

It’s literally a dogma by definition. Saying that you would do something as a matter of principle under all possible conditions without ever considering a different strategy is a dogma.

Why did you skip over the part where I showed consideration of how weak and bad the third party candidates are and the other strategy of not voting at all before arriving at the blue candidate?

It’s “you should vote for Democrats no matter what.” Even if they’re a genocidal fascist far-right freak who is going to do everything in their power to block an edge case like Mamdani from every making any positive change, we should apparently still support that.

Now you're just straight up strawmanning.

Would you actually vote for them if they did or just shame people for not voting blue no matter who?

I actually have voted third party, and it got us the 2nd Iraq war. You're welcome. So you can see when I advocate against weak third party votes, its because I don't want a repeat of arguably the USAs first 21st century geopolitical catastrophe and millions of lives lost needlessly in Iraq.

Third parties in the USA have historically fielded pretty weak candidates.

Okay then field strong candidates.

Oh shit! So easy! Why didn't I think of that?!

When I read your first post here, I saw your line of thought was pretty thin, but there might be something of substance there. I can see what I thought was substance in your post was a mirage. It was a mistake to waste my time engaging with you.

Have a nice day.

[–] bunchberry@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

Well, I’m not sure why I’d even be running for a nomination to your “Racism Party™”, but I would be pretty unsurprised when I didn’t win.

You're the one advocating to run for genocidal far-right jingoist party.

I don’t understand why you’d have me running in that party in the first place so I don’t know what answer you’re fishing for here.

You're intentionally avoiding the point because you know I am right at this point.

Now you’re just straight up strawmanning.

You: "vote blue no matter who."

Me: "You're saying we should vote blue no matter."

You: "STRAW MAN STRAW MAN"

When I read your first post here, I saw your line of thought was pretty thin, but there might be something of substance there. I can see what I thought was substance in your post was a mirage. It was a mistake to waste my time engaging with you.

This is just copium. You have conceded my entire argument. You cannot uphold the position that we should mindlessly "vote blue no matter who," so you intentionally avoid the point because you know mindlessly voting for genocidal fascists is not a tenable position.

There is no point of discussing further as you have already conceded my argument but have too big of an ego to admit it.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

I actually have voted third party, and it got us the 2nd Iraq war.

no. al gore won that election. voting for the so-called third party had no bearing on the outcome.