this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
616 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19556 readers
3216 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

AP has a new poll out which asked whether people think it’s a good or bad thing that the President “relies on billionaires for advice about government policy.” When I first saw the results of this poll as “good” coming in at “+12” I thought they meant ‘net’ 12% and I thought, ‘eeeesh, the honeymoon phase is more intense than I thought!’ But no, 12%: as in, 12% of the public think it’s a good thing. 60% think it’s not. That’s US adults. The only outliers are Republicans, 20% of whom think this is a good thing. But even that is pretty feeble. To put it simply, these are terrible numbers.

In a strange way, this is reassuring. I've said a lot of times the most frustrating thing about all of this isn't that the conservatives are too stupid to see the forest for the trees. No, they see a lot of the same shit we do, but their dedication to hierarchy is what undoes them every time. They could technically agree with me about an issue, but I'm not a person they consider an Authority Figure, and the only people they do respect as Authority Figures are, to put it fucking mildly, abusive bullies.

It's also that misinformation has succeeded. What I assume is due to primarily a lack of quality education, but they seem incapable of understanding nuance. So they see that, say, the New York Times may not be trustworthy when discussing certain issues, just like I do. However, unlike myself, instead of reading it anyway with a skeptical eye while also digesting other sources about the same issue, they instead write off all mainstream media sources and then believe crazy shit online. They don't know who to trust anymore, so they trust the most wild charlatans that exist. That's not their fault, to be fair, our mainstream media has been failing us for decades. I worked in local news during the Iraq War and I remember how much the media juiced the war for the Bush Administration while asking few questions and the NYT even sat on the NSA wiretapping story for over a year to help Bush.

They're not wrong to not entirely trust legacy media, but they end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the end, they also see how letting the most obscenely wealthy run the show isn't such a hot idea. Which is strangely reassuring, as I said. They know something stinks, but they lack the education and tools to properly identify it, as well as their inability to break out from hierarchical thinking.

[–] Tiger@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Very well put, great insight.

load more comments (1 replies)