politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Teamsters are a freaking huge union, that includes, for example, truck drivers. (It’s even in their name. A Teamster was the person who managed an ox gang pulling wagons, way back when that was the most common means of transport.)
Truck drivers, at least the ones I’ve met are full-on maga, so yes, they’re republicans. I’m sure there are progressive truck drivers, but I haven’t met any.
It’s hardly surprising that their member base are fairly conservative. Enough so, at least, that they don’t want to weigh in on it.
You flack for Jill Stein- I know you say you don’t, but the majority of the articles you post are pro-her, and you’re going as far afield as German gossip rags (that you subsequently hide behind an aggregator link,) to get material.
You also get extremely defensive, especially when people aren’t critical of you, but rather Stein. And yes, she might not be a typical Russian asset, but she certainly parrots the Russian agenda and receives propaganda-support for that.
Nope. My post history: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
:)
the last ten articles posted in politics, by you:
So in the last ten posts to this community.... you have 6 posts about Stein, and 4 others. I've seen that similar ratio in every news/politics community I'm subbed to, and I'm not going to bother trolling through your... ahem... prolific.... posting history to verify that globally.
(Edit, a word,)
That doesn't seem like I only post about Jill Stein. And since you refuse to look at my posting history for global posting, doesn't really seem to prove the argument that I only post about Jill Stein.
Seems like you have proven that I actually post about third parties. Not just Jill Stein. Which is what I have always maintained. :)
I don't write the articles, I just post them. There are a LOT of Jill Stein articles written every day by news orgs--far more than are written about other candidates. So that's on the news, not me, friend. :)
Lol.
"Majority" =/= "only". I said "majority". 60% of the last ten seems a fairly reasonable majority to me, and I'm not going to go through literally thousands of posts to sort that out. Congratulations, you've managed to say I said things I did not say and argued successfully against those words I did not say. Again. You seem to like doing that. you also seem to like sealioning.
which brings us to:
which is a comment you seem to be saying alot.
Lets just be real for a second here. You're only posting articles that put 3rd part candidates in a positive light. The majority of which are about jill stein, and none are exclusively about RFK. (that I have seen, no I'm not going through your spam). Similarly, in the generalized subs about news and politics, you're not posting about any other candidates.
See a pattern? you're not "just" posting articles that news agencies are publishing. You're publishing articles about 3rd party candidates (and not all of them, either.) that put them in a positive light. To be perfectly blunt: You're cherry picking. So that comment you keep spamming when people call you out for this? yeah. I don't buy it.
But it's not 60%
Because it's true.
I have posted plenty of RFK articles. Again, you refuse to look at my post history.
OH! So that's what you are pissed about . Ok, ok. So how many democrat articles do you all post where the democrats aren't in a "positive light"?
Also, I created an entire community where people can post as many positive democrat articles as they want. And I have a socialist community where I have posted over 500 articles and posts that portray BOTH main parties in a negative light. https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
Again, you refuse to check my post history, but go on about how I mostly post Jill Stein articles. I can't take you seriously, man. lol
And I get to post what I want, when I want. Even if it makes you mad.