We’re done talking about the debate because we’re all talking about the assassination attempt
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.
- 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.
- 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
This article is a week old.
Good.
Now we can finally move on to the part where he loses in a landslide and find some way to blame the left. Right?
As if they even need a reason. They'll just say "the left and young people didn't turn out to vote for our perfect candidate and that's the only reason why we lost" (probably only slightly paraphrasing) whether any facts support it or not.
When Democrats win, it's because of "moderates and independents" (read: pro-corporate Zionist right wing Democrats) doing everything perfectly.
When Democrats lose, it's that monstrously powerful left wing (who shouldn't get any policy concessions because there's so few of them that they have no bearing on election results) and those lazy millennial and Gen Z people (who should get no policy concessions to encourage them to vote because they won't vote) ruining it for "the adults in the room" 🙄
Find me a poll that shows Biden losing by more than the margin of error. If the demographic data shows 18 to 20-somethings supporting Trump, it doesn't count.
Do that, and I'll consider the possibility that Biden isn't likely to win.
Edit: someone replied with a transcription of a poll, refused to link it, insulted me, linked an entirely different page, and then wrote an entire essay instead of just giving me the link. My criteria for evidence for this claim that Biden is probably going to lose is incredibly low, and a person has failed to fulfill it for most of a day and counting. I invite everyone to shut the fuck up because it's clearly bullshit. Biden isn't losing, and I won't change my mind unless I have even half-descent evidence of it.
Jun 28 - July 2
YouGov: Trump 44%, Biden 40% N=2,815 LV
NY times: Trump: 42%, Biden 37% N= 1,532 LV
MOE: < 3% for both polls
If the demographic data shows 18 to 20-somethings supporting Trump, it doesn't count.
Why focus on a group that doesn't vote? Polls show Biden ahead in that demographic though...so these count?
I can't verify this. The closest I could find is "who do you think won the debate, regardless of who you support?" https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/06/28/2bc47/2
You're telling me that with Google you couldn't find the results of the poll having who conducted it and the dates? Highly doubtful.
Here's an aggregated list of all polls with links.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
"Hey, I can't find this."
"Finding it is so easy, look!" [Links to a different thing instead]
At this point, I'm assuming that you made it up and that's why you didn't send me a link.
As for what you did link, the average shows Trump less than 2% ahead, and I don't see an easy breakdown of demographic information. (Not surprising, given that it's an aggregation of many polls, but it still doesn't meet my minimum specifications.) Furthermore, the data points being averaged are all over the place. As I said before, the polls showing Biden behind a significant ammount show younger voters favoring Trump, which strikes me as an obvious indicator of failure in the methodology. If this failure in methods is as pervasive as I suspect, then the average is going to skew far in Trump's favor. But again, I have no way of verifying that.
It's literally on that page. Great job actually looking though!
If you don't see a breakdown, again it's because you didn't look. Every poll has a link to it.
And yet you failed to provide it. Again.
Why would I go on a wild goose chase to find something that I'm pretty sure you're making up?
No, you won't. You've ignored the polling up to now, why would me posting it make it visible to you suddenly?
You don't understand how evidence and implications work, do you?
You don't understand how cherry picking data and echo chambers work, do you?
Maybe you are Joe, but you and I are not we.
Going full mask off?
It’s obvious that bullseye in this case doesn’t mean “we should shoot him”.
Presidents are allowed to assassinate people now, did you not hear that?
He, also, can direct people to kill US citizens without concern to the Bill of Rights. Now it may be that it's illegal for the person to carry out the order, but:
- It would be a "Constitutional" order (see SCOTUS decision).
- Presidents can issue pardons for federal offenses.
His right to do as he pleases is absolute and the intentions cannot be considered.
Now we’re talking about how you think we’re done talking about the debate.
For fucks sake, he and his campaign team are going to gaffe our way into a fascist dictatorship.
Correct.
We closed our ears, ignored everyone for a dozen days, and did absolutely nothing to address the issue.
Now the problem is magically fixed - Blue MAGA
Cool. Can we also be done talking about how you're not as bad as the Toupee? I'd like to hear why you specifically are the best option, not just the less bad one.