this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1003 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2929 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The feel of a battleground text spam is well crafted. By Elon. The subsequent Harris spam today was “meh” at best.

I’m already voting for Harris but this text spam from MAGA absolutely will hit chords with folks. The latest one made a claim then linked to an article that said as much. Sort of. But if you’re only reading the headline and the first line it’s a real gotcha. Theirs has pictures. Hers is a single run on sentence.

More “we’re not going back” would resonate better, but it’s just not there. And today was the first Harris text that didn’t ask for money.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

If you are still being swayed, on October 28th, by MAGA spam texts, then you can fuck off.

Edit: Obviously, I could have been more clear: I meant "you" as in the person reading these texts. To be clear, I do not disagree with anything you said. I made this comment out of frustration of the idea that there are people out there who will get a text from Trump one week before the election, and have it sway them.

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

They said they are voting for Harris, and are offering feedback that the Harris texts could be done differently to make them more effective. It's not the same as being "swayed"

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, fair enough and i 100% agree.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Read the post, don’t just skim over key words and react. They’re effective texts, probably, it’s an observation.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I didn't mean you, I meant "you" as in the reader of said texts. I was not disagreeing with you. Should have been more clear.