this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
270 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19160 readers
4592 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
 

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has come under fire for its latest advert attacking Kamala Harris’ pro-trans views, once again parroting the former commander-in-chief’s claim that the Democratic nominee is funding gender-affirming surgeries for “illegal aliens”.

The advert was posted on Trump's social media channels on Friday (20 September), repeating his claims that Harris supports taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care for prisoners and undocumented immigrants.

The ad, branded "trans panic" by social media users, ends with the tagline: "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you."

GLAAD president and chief executive Sarah Kate Ellis responded by telling The Advocate: "This reeks of desperation.... [voters have] "repeatedly rejected candidates who target transgender people and have strongly stated that they want extremists out of our doctors' offices and private lives.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm so thankful with this latest SLAMMING he clearly has no shot of winning.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do NOT get complacent. He has a very real shot at winning if it is assumed he’s already lost. That’s one of the reasons he got elected the first time.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Honestly I feel it’s even more likely he’s elected this time. The “Hillary hands down” polls were so much wider than any I’m seeing. Unless polling has gotten considerably more accurate, there are going to be a lot of sad and shocked people out there days after the election.

I truly hope my feelings are unjustified but the nation is in big fuckin trouble.

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

Polls were closer in 2020. Polls also don't mean shit. Voting does

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I think back in 2016 a lot of his supporters didn't feel comfortable telling people they wanted to vote for him, even with anonymous polls. Trump supporters are much more open and vocal now.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Check 270towin.com, popularity wise he has no chance. Unfortunately we have electoral college and with that he has 50/50 chance currently.

That's scarily too close.

Edit: this is why it is important to make sure you vote. Historically electoral college typically matches popular vote.

The manipulation is possible when the turnout is low. The gerrymandering also works the best with a low turnout, and if turnout is unexpectedly high it can backfire and turn otherwise red counties into blue. This is why it is important to vote, even in the states you think your vote doesn't matter.

What's ironic is that the non voting population is so high, that if they all turned in and voted they would override everyone else who normally does.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

No shot of winning the popular vote. But between the electoral college and his rampant election rigging, this election is far from certain.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Looking that way. Vote anyway. Let's see if we can break a record of voter turnout and margin of difference. No more of this stupid late night "still 50%/50% results, too close to call" because everyone thought it was a done deal and they didn't need to show up. Amazing how when everyone thinks that, there aren't enough votes..