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.
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
view the rest of the comments
Actually, your script goes a long way to convincing me the account is not a bot or shared account but a regular person.
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
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.)