Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Yes he did:
"We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics... And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen," he said.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/could-trump-use-military-go-after-radical-left/story?id=114806253
Dude looked at the Nixon admin's response to political opposition and said "yeah that's a good way to go!" 🤦♂️
Agreed. Even from the reason article itself,
it is clear that Trump, contrary to the gloss offered by the Times, was talking about rioting by "radical left lunatics," as opposed to peaceful protests
Except that the quote that they give is this one,
I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within—not even the people that have come in and destroyed our country, by the way, totally destroying our country. The towns, the villages, they're being inundated. But I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day.
I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they're the—and it should be very easily handled by—if necessary, by [the] National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen.
Which has no mentioning of rioting or violence. The implication is clear - he'd be willing to sic the military on nonviolent dissidents.
[email protected] "Socialist Mormon Satanist" stats generated @ 10/21/2024, 11:43:45 AM EDT
Top 10 duplicate submissions from [email protected] (total 623 exact dupes and 321 fuzzy (70% or more similar) dupes found).
None of this takes into account time reading others' posts/comments, or alts this user may secretly have.
lemmy.ml banned this user yesterday for being a troll. Isn't it about time that lemmy.world did also? For Christ's sake, there is an election going on, and it's been beyond clear for two months that this user intends to sway it, and fully opposite anything resembling a leftist goal.
Agreed, it's absurd that such an obvious bot or shared account has gotten a free pass this long. If there's a legitimate desire for discussion on these articles, someone else can easily post them, but this account in particular reeks of pushing a narrative in spite of the community's desire for sincere discussion.
The mods are really pussyfooting around this guy. Just fucking ban him already.
Update: @[email protected] was banned lmao.
If the script I wrote to expose this troll/sealion doesn't change any minds, literally nothing will.
Actually, your script goes a long way to convincing me the account is not a bot or shared account but a regular person.
~111 mins / day
So the guy gets a full 8 hours of sleep, does a full 8 hours of work at a job and has a reasonable commute, spends less than 2 hours on the fediverse, and still has quite a few hours of personal time for other things like catching the latest movie?
(Alternatively, guy works at home, checks in on the fediverse frequently on his work computer while also doing his regular job, and maybe stays logged on for 10 hours a day instead of the required 8 to make up for the difference.)
It's certainly possible that this is a guy who is a GOP and MAGA supporter, and is being less than fully honest about his motives in promoting third parties.
But it's also possible that what's written on the tin is in fact accurate - he's a person who dislikes the duopoly in the US and wants to vote 3rd party no matter what, and wanting to share his thoughts on the election in an unfiltered way.
Which one is the truth? I'll let you, the voter, decide.
But, that aside, I think this comment from our mod explains it best,
https://lemmy.world/comment/12661845
The consensus is, yes, they have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not against the TOS.
The comments and downvotes do their job exposing just how shitty their opinions are.
You're bending far over backwards to be contrary. Just so you know, it's not of concern to me.
Ah, sorry, I see now that it was not you but gsfraley who was accusing of a shared or bot account (when even you have provided evidence to the contrary on that point).
Speaking of being contrary - well, just how far backwards can I be bending if I have independently come to the same conclusion as the mods here?
Yes, the mark of being non-contrary -- cherry picking the opinion you already agree with as evidence
Not cherry-picking, I said I came to the same conclusion independently of the mod.
But in a way, you could consider me a test. If you can change my mind with your arguments and statistics, then perhaps jordanlund would also be convinced by the same post replies.
(I'm not guaranteeing it, in fact considering that I'm not a mod here, I'm probably a lower bar to convince than jordanlund or the other mods.)
You're clearly picking the less popular opinion. This is either obvious to you or it isn't. The numbers are there, and you chose your reading of them. I cannot do anything about that.
No, I agree. My conclusion puts me on the less popular opinion on this one matter, and that's obvious to me. However, I was replying to a thread asking for someone to be banned, and - just as we don't automatically convict folks in court on the basis of popular opinion, I feel that it would be nice if stronger standards also applied before someone got a ban.
(Not saying the full criminal defendant protections should apply mind, as this is just a ban on one magazine or one instance in the fediverse, so it's not like we need to apply the full protections against depriving someone of their freedom as they are locked in jail, here.)
That said, if my reading of the numbers is wrong, I am open to having that explained - that is I'm open to admitting I'm wrong. (If one checks my history, they'll find that I've done so multiple times.)
Beautiful 😍
It's heartening to get positive feedback like this, I appreciate it. I've been calling this guy out for a while and it disgusts me how often people defend them.
You're doing a good job, keep it up!
There seems to be a new one who just showed up as well: @[email protected]
Amateur numbers though ;)
[email protected] "Dot." stats generated @ 10/21/2024, 11:35:27 AM EDT
Top 2 duplicate submissions from [email protected]
Total 2 exact dupes found.
Poster is straight up defending Trump now. Mask off, I guess. No more pretending to post Jill Stein because he “found it interesting.”
Yeah, it's a bit disappointing and super lame. Used to be just a shit ton of random news, then a bit right leaning, now fully pro-Trump posts only.
Oh well, Boost to the rescue again with user tags. "Trump Schill"? "Would happily gag on Trump's mushroom"? I wonder what the character limit is
Do you think it's better to block someone or add a note to them so you can still engage with their content? I've gotten into the habit of blocking people and I'm not sold on it being the best approach.
I block outright racists and obvious low effort idiots, but for the most part I tag people so I can see how often they post, or if it's consistently in one direction or pushing an agenda. Right wing keyboard warriors of various stripes are the most common, but it's handy to tag people on the far left, or really anyone too rigidly one-dimension.
Kinda like checking your sources for news and quotes I guess? If I know someone's trying to manipulate me, I can form a more complete opinion and understanding.
"We need to use the military on the enemy within if necessary"
"Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are examples of enemies from within"
Seems pretty clear.
He wants to use the military against "left leaning lunatics". Well if he refers to everyone on the left as a lunatic, then that's everyone who disagrees with him. He sometimes defines the "lunatics" as the communist and Marxist in the party. But we already had McCarthyism once, what about second McCarthyism? Is anyone who votes left just a secret communist in disguise?
Straight out of the fascist playbook; invent a boogyman that most reasonable people would dislike, promote violence and discrimination against this boogyman, then color all your opponents as boogymen.
Posting more pro Trump garbage. Tell us again how you didn't vote for Trump.
I've usually been pretty open minded about your posts, giving the benefit of the doubt that it's all just for perspective and not your own political astroturfing, but this one is straight up, grade-A bullshit. He literally did say that. There are video clips of him saying it because he fucking said it during a public event that was being filmed.
For fuck's sake.
I’m so tired of the media sanewashing this violent, demented lunatic.
Bartiromo asked Trump whether he was "expecting chaos on Election Day" if "you win." "Trump suggests he'll use the military on 'the enemy from within' the U.S. if he's reelected," said the PBS headline over an Associated Press story. That one does not even superficially make sense, since Trump would not yet be president in Bartiromo's scenario.
So this guy says "I'm going to order the military to attack American citizens if I'm reelected" and Reason is out here saying that headlines expressing concern about using the military for political revenge are fake news because this interviewer asked what he'd do on Election Day? He literally said that he would send the military after "the enemy within" in response to her question. Reason out here lying about the context of his answer because the senile old fascist can't wait until inauguration to get his hands on the military. Probably would be good for the MBFC to re-evaluate Reason's factuality rating.
The fake crises he invents all sound like cheesy horror movies:
"convicted illegal alien murderers on the loose"
"cannibal zombie vampires from outer space"
"Millions and millions are pouring into our country each day!"
It's true. I now have 8 Mexicans living underneath my floorboards, since millions have been pouring in every day since he started saying this there's not much place else for them to go. According to my calculations and this graph that I drew on with a sharpie, if this trend continues and Harris wins in November, by 2028 there will be more Guatemalans in Arizona than molecules of water in the ocean. I rest my case.