Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
217 points (87.5% liked)
politics
19170 readers
6952 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
certain lemmy users around these parts absolutely frothing at the mouth seeing this graph
A similar article will be posted every time Monk posts one supporting a 3rd party spoiler from now on.
so you're gonna have to find like 20 articles a day.... also don't forget to copy paste a 6 paragraph defense of "I swear I'm not Russian I just post the articles" in the comments of every post
I do have the time... :)
Genuine question: why has he not been banned? To me he seems to repeatedly violate the rule about arguing in good faith, and - to be honest - his passive aggressive civility feels at times more hostile than straight up attacks.
We've talked about it amongst ourselves with the mods and admins and have concluded that having a shitty opinion is not infringing.
They do post legitimate sources with legitimate opinions. They're BAD opinions, but you aren't going to get banned for having a bad opinion.
I don't much have an issue with the material they chose to post - the nature of a link aggregator will sort them to the bottom regardless due how how voting works and as you say, they're legitimate sources.
My issue is more regarding their conduct in the comment sections.
It's not the opinion, it's the JAQ energy and baiting.
If they just posted articles, that's one thing.
They legitimately try to bait people into being heated about things. Afterwhich, they cry victim
Yeah but is it against the rules to be an asshole or a crybaby ? I tend to say stupid shit when drinking and have gotten a ban and a few comments and posts deleted, but it would be a shame for something minor to get me a bigger ban or what not.
I'm not going to directly link the user because that's bad behavior but they have a very clear routine they follow on every post. Having an opinion is fine, acting like you are following a script is eventually really lame. Especially when the end of the script usually is calling people out for victimizing them
This user often posts about Jill Stein, and is exclusively critical of democrats.
I'm frothing at the mouth because it's distorted, making an easy comparison by visuals impossible. The numbers don't match the size of the pies
Someone fucked these up badly and there's no way to tell from this how.
Are the numbers swapped between candidates but the sizes correct? Are the sizes swapped between candidates and the numbers correct?
As an aside, this is why serious data people don't use pie charts. They're terrible for lots of reasons, one being it's very hard to compare areas instead of lengths, like a bar chart, as demonstrated by how many people didn't notice these were so bad at first.
If you see data presented in a pie chart you should immediately be suspicious that it's dishonest or incompetent.
None of that is to take away that voting for third parties this election is a terrible move - just saying this chart is useless.
Not really. The point has always been that the dems need pressure to change their genocidal policies. If you vote blue unconditionally then it won’t take long until the next blue candidate will be on the same level as trump. Show these graphs to the democratic party and tell them to listen to 3rd party voters.