Politics Unfiltered
As some of you may already know by now, the previous mod of this community got nuked for being a universally well known and .world-class troll.
Moving forward, I think id like to keep the idea of this community alive but with the caveat that the rules will actually be followed by those that moderate it as well- becasue as we all know, dictatorships aren’t any fun for anyone that isn’t the dictator. And the previous…. mod, was having WAY too much fun.
New Rules:
• if posting a link, the 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. Posts must be relevant to politics.
• 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.
• No trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. No hate speech, false accusations, slurs, celebrating death, or advocating violence. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning.
And now for the boilerplate disclaimery-type stuff:
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.
view the rest of the comments
You know as well as I do that election math is just as hard to understand as toilet paper math. Election math says the 3% that voted for third party candidates is always the cause of them losing the election and never the 15+% that defected or refused to continue voting for them.
I mean, heaven forbid we ask the party to adopt positions more inline with a majority of the parties likely voters..
Meanwhile, the candidate is still focused on offering right wingers an olive branch, as if courting the legitimate cult that gave us Cheeto Mussolini is really going to produce measurable differences electorally.
You can put aside the deep ethical issue of being a pro-genocide party for just a moment(which is absurd) and it's still clear that better electoral strategy is to shift on Gaza and go get the 3-5% of likely Democrat who are going to say "not good enough".