this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
206 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3201 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/17945663

Link to poll: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/23/voters-prefer-candidates-who-are-supportive-of-transgender-rights-think-recent-political-ads-have-gotten-mean-spirited-and-out-of-hand

When voters are asked whether they are more inclined to support a candidate who backs transgender rights or one who opposes them, voters overwhelmingly choose the candidate in favor of transgender rights, by a margin of 21 points. This trend holds true among Independents, with a 19-point preference. Even 22% of Republicans indicate they are more likely to support a candidate who favors trans rights—a significantly higher percentage than the share of Democrats who would back a candidate opposing them.

Furthermore, voters showed frustration with the wave of anti-trans advertisements. When asked if they thought political attack ads against the transgender community have gotten mean spirited and out of hand, far more voters agree than disagree (+28 points). This finding holds true for independents (+23 points) as well, with even 31% of Republicans finding that there were too many political attack ads.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

We're all tired of all ads.

A friend proposed that a big button should appear immediately after you vote and pressing it would stop all political ads.

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

Its literally the only 45 ads i see during football, the only effect it has is making me want to vote for Kamala.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, I saw one yesterday for the first time during football because I typically avoid all the classic sources of commercials, and it was just two dude bros who looked like they were making a podcast sitting around saying "Yo, I don't want all my tax money being used to give prisoners sex change operations". And I thought, "who on earth would this possible convince to vote for Trump who wasn't already absolutely going to?"

[–] [email protected] 60 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's funny that the people who preach freedom and having their rights are the very people who want to take our rights. Actually it's not that funny.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because, from them, the law exists as a means to punish people you don't like.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

From that article:

This quotation is often incorrectly attributed to Francis M. Wilhoit:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.[10]

However, it was actually a 2018 blog response by 59-year-old Ohio composer Frank Wilhoit, years after Francis Wilhoit's death.[11]

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

I've definitely heard this quote prior to 2018. I won't pretend to know who said it first but there's no way it originated then.

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

From that page:

This quotation is often incorrectly attributed to Francis M. Wilhoit:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.[10]

However, it was actually a 2018 blog response by 59-year-old Ohio composer Frank Wilhoit, years after Francis Wilhoit's death.[11]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 49 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Stop worrying about what's in other people's pants. Especially kids pants.

Fucking Weirdos.

Just let the doctors do their job helping people be happy with themselves.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

I worry what is in kids pants. Way too often it's the hand of someone in a position of trust.