this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
561 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18998 readers
2144 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

That’s some serious small dick energy

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A candidate being mad at a fact check is a massive red flag

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a massive red flag but one the right won't see. Just look at Fox-Legally-Classified-As-Entertainment's clip on the fact checking, and read the comments. They took this as a sign of bias and think JD Vance won the exchange. The fact that JD Vance spelled out the legal process for them to not be illegal immigrants (iow he was lying) is lost on them.

I hope at least some people realize the gaslighting going on both from trump/vance as well as the media.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

People doing this kind of mental gymnastics weren't ever going to accept that Vance lost the debate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think the reports of Vance having "won" are greatly overstated:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/10/02/tim-walz-jd-vance-polls-both-candidates-favorability-increases-post-debate/

42% vs. 41%? That's well within the margin of error, LOL.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What are your numbers supposed to mean? From your article:

Prior to the debate, a New York Times/Siena College poll released Sept. 28 found Midwestern voters prefer Walz to Vance: Walz was viewed favorably by 44% of voters and unfavorably by 41%, while Vance was viewed favorably by 42% of voters and unfavorably by 48%.

So 44% like Walz, 42% like Vance. 41% dislike Walz, 48% dislike Vance. Comparing 42 and 41 is comparing two different things

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

42%. That’s how many debate viewers in the CBS poll thought Vance was the winner of the debate, compared to 41% who thought Walz won. Seventeen percent of viewers said the debate ended in a tie.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ignorant, lying, coward. Also the way his body shape is leaning: cow-ward

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

trump stance, maybe he's wearing trump lifts?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Looks like the source changed the headline on you:

"J.D. Vance Lashes Out After the Smallest Fact-Check in V.P. Debate"

If you could update yours, that would be great!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

An archived copy shows

J.D. Vance Freaks Out Over the Slightest Pushback in V.P. Debate

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And this melting snowflake may actually be our next vice president.

I like my VPs able to take criticism

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 days ago

Given Donny's general health, this melting snowflake may well be your next president

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

It's because (like all authoritarian dildos) he has an ego larger than he deserves and can't look inward for anything.

load more comments
view more: next ›