this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
423 points (98.4% liked)

politics

27195 readers
3823 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
[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 37 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

I legitimately cannot comprehend polls where people who voted for Trump in 2024 changed their minds.

Trump- "Hey I'm going to do all this terrible shit"

Voters- "I'm going to vote for Trump presumably because I like his platform"

Trump- *does exactly what he said he was going to do*

Voters- >:(

[–] spizzat2@lemmy.zip 30 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I recently overheard a conversation between two people complaining about how, after the election, their friends unfollowed anyone who followed Trump.

Their argument was "I only voted for one issue. It's not like I have time to know everything."

It was an aggravating interaction, but also a strong reminder of just how ignorant the average voter is.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I only voted for one issue.

Hm, I wonder what that was.

Regardless, it's not like someone is going to spend four years on one issue.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 27 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

IKR? These people wanted to pretend they were picked on, the poor dears, for espousing small government, personal responsibility, waging war on "socialized medicine", trading wicked memes about "Going Galt" or how the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

No, it's always about them wanting to force people to host the worst versions of what a human being might say on their private platforms - spreading xenophobia, anti-gay, anti-trans, misogynist hate speech, or spreading outright lies about, oh, I don't know, a pandemic.

Gosh, I wonder why what offends conservatives the most is when people want to disassociate from them for this last stuff? I mean, if it's not a central plank of their movement and their platform?

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

They wrap it all up as freedom of speech, forgeting how fucking stupid they sound while desperately wishing the concept of hate-speech would go away except when they try to use it by saying that “cis” is a slur because these people have two malfunctioning braincells at best.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think a lot of them heard what they wanted to hear. Certainly few wanted to read anything about Project 2025, even though it was a click away. Or voted with their "tribe" and know next to nothing about that tribe's decades long platform, Taco's specific agenda, Project 2025's agenda, or the conservative "movement" that underlies all of it.

Or they were simply racist AF and thought all the undesirables were going to be whisked away as if by magic and without any kind of visible consequences like women shot and children gassed. Or they thought he "didn't really mean it" but he's a miracle-worker on the economy...

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago

But that’s because Trump speaks in open ended words like - freedom, patriot, illegal. People create their own narrative for what those words mean, and apply it to Trump and then are surprised that their definition doesn’t match trumps… I mean they can’t know everything right? /s

[–] Zink@programming.dev 7 points 21 hours ago

Oh don't worry, most of them who voted for him a third time are still cheering on the leopards with glee as all the smart-ass minorities and democrat-run areas get what's coming to 'em!

I went and looked at the profile of a real life trumper who is no longer a friend, on a social media site that I also mostly avoid, and they are openly supporting ICE.

Their justification is literally "imagine if you or your loved one was killed by an illegal" after listing a random list of names of people who were supposedly killed by "ILLEGALS." But it's a 3-paragraph post written by somebody who seems to think they are very clever for coming up with a weak metaphor for "imagine if somebody got some shit instead of you" so it's probably just a copypasta from some grifter they follow.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

There was also a manual out. You didn’t even need to listen to him, you just had to read…

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

That's the thing. They aren't so good at the whole reading thing.