"Somebody shit in my pants."
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
259 points (94.5% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2527 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
Post election searches are the best:
"What is the EU?"
"What is Brexit?"
load more comments
(2 replies)
Bloody hell, this is the US version of Brexit... this world would be such a better place if people just did the bare minimum of reading into what they were actually voting for before they fucking voted!
Also, seeing the other top searches being about the tariffs would have me creasing if it weren't so disappointingly stupid that these peoole seemingly knew nothing about Trumps most advertised economic policy before (assumably) voting for him
Whenever I see all the trash on the side of the road, I know why the world is that way.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The article claims "in droves" then doesn't give a number, or even an estimate.
Yeah, because google is vague.
Not sure what "100" means, but that's what it peaked at.
That is a percentage score. So you take the highest level of searches and it will always be 100% and all lesser scores are in comparison to that score of 100(%). If you can find out what the actual number of searches are for that one score, you can derive the approximate number of searches in the other places. It shows an informational tool tip on desktop.
Well that's less than entirely helpful.
Thank you very much for the explanation!
Your welcome... I liked it when it was Google Zeitgeist and they published hard numbers but since they rebranded and named their video series Google Zeitgeist good luck finding out the actual numbers 🤐
Here are a couple comparisons that maybe give it more relevance:
load more comments
(1 replies)
But droves though. Droves.
It could have been droves... it also could have been 10 people. It also doesn't say which way they wanted to change their vote. It could all be LIV's who learned something they didn't know after voting early or it could have been people torn about their vote panicking and seeing if they could change their mind.
This doesn't tell you anything but people searched it and not how many.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"How to unsink the Titanic"
i fucking called it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13331955
turns out the answer to my question is “less than a week”
Reminds me of Brexit
Oh cmon, Russian money wasn’t involved in… Oh OHH
load more comments
(2 replies)
The relative numbers are worth little without knowing the underlying numbers. If it went from 100 to 700 people, that is still negligble. Also crazy how people immediately take that as a base to remove voters rights unless they pass some sort of test. Nothing could go wrong with stripping voters rights amirite?
For all future elections I suggest we have one voter - me. I promise to deliver the optimally democratic outcome.
Ah, the Vetinari principle. One man, one vote.
Vetinari is that man, and he has that vote.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
How are people this stupid?something in the water?
Lead... I'm not kidding.
Don't forget pesticide exposure which eventually has similar effects to lead over time: decreased intelligence and increased aggression
load more comments
(1 replies)
Some 'murican cities are unironically trying to get rid of fluoride from water. You know, the thing that also goes in toothpaste and is overall good for keeping teeth healthy
load more comments
(9 replies)
Years of GOP meddling with education, which is only gonna nose dive when dept of education gets dismantled
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wonder how many of these people are just now realizing that they have immediate family and friends who won’t be here next Christmas.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Once again, these are the a validation headlines that create and support echo chambers. Honestly, what does it matter now?
We already know the regret is strong on this nation and will only get worse.
Considering all of the shocking things Trump promised to do once he was elected, people are re-evaluating what they have gotten themselves into.
Sigh...
God I fucking hate humans
You broke it, you bought it.
Yeah except we're all going to pay.
America even does socialism the worst
load more comments
(3 replies)
Is this the "Find out" stage then?
Actions have consequences. Sad people had to figure it out this way.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The republican anti-education campaign bears fruit I see.
To own the libs, they sold their soul.
Something is seriously wrong with civics education in this country. People in power have no incentive to fix it. At least naturalized citizens have to take a fairly stringent test.
What ya'll upset for now? The economy was so good under Trump! Didn't you want him to deport all those "poisonous" immigrants. He's your retribution. And, besides, it's not like Harris would have been any better, because they're the same anyway.
/s
I love it. America’s last hope and people failed. Fuck this place. Let the civil war begin.
Are we all just assuming these searches are from people who regret their votes and hoped to be able to change it?
I double checked my ballot before submitting it, with full knowledge that irrevocability is the price of anonymity. Nevertheless, I might use similar search terms if I was curious how many other voters, possibly in other states or with different political alignments, had written about regretting their votes. Or, perhaps, ... if I was doing research for a post-election article about the topic.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›