this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
109 points (98.2% liked)

politics

31112 readers
2249 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A wave of Republican attacks against two Muslim Democrats has ended with one of the most prominent right-wing commentators in the country endorsing Abdul El-Sayed for Senate.

Tucker Carlson wrote in his newsletter on Friday that El-Sayed’s opponent, Mike Rogers, was unfit for office and defended him over his past criticism of the war on terror.

The Michigan Democrat emerged from this past week after a wave of attacks were hurled at him and Zohran Mamdani, the first elected Muslim mayor of New York, around the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both men were the subject of intense focus from media organizations on the right and even some mainstream outlets as the two faced differing but related accusations of anti-American sentiment impossible to separate from their Muslim faith.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I mean do you think you are actually convincing any one with these absurd accusations (other than maybe yourself, by shrinking and shrinking the circular nature of your own thinking).

You basically have a toddler level analysis of 2016, and are accusing anyone who has a mature thought as being an "obvious russian bot". That only works on people who also are decrepit, toddler level thinkers.

So if you've gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @UsernameHere@lemmy.world 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren't arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?

One could say that they are looking to split off "liberals" from the rest of the left with this kind of rhetoric. In this sense, they act as a "wrecker" to any kind of populist, leftist movement. Scratch a "russian bad" liberal, and how deep will we have to go to find a zionist apologist, a blue MAGA't, someone promoting the least viable, most reprehensible instincts of the Democratic party?

It does beg the question doesn't it?

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

So if you've gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @UsernameHere@lemmy.world 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren't arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?

Also consider the fact that if this post were being brigaded by bots that you would see anyone suspicious of the bot’s talking point to have some counter argument being made against them trying to steer the narrative.

‘Tucker is actually just playing 5d chess’

‘Tucker is just trying to save his career’

‘Tucker is just so based that he knows how to pick a winner’

Etc.

These comments that are reasonably skepitcal of Tucker Carlson would be downvoted by the brigaders and the bot’s talking point would be boosted to the top by the bots because it is easy to outnumber real users with bots.

If the bot’s narrative isn’t a genuine opinion held by the readers you would see multiple real users getting downvoted just like you do throughout this thread.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Seems like you’re implying that Lemvotes somehow disproves the existence of bots and brigading lmao

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

you’re implying

I'm implying that you are a toddler brained Liberal who's analysis is narrowly focused in a kind of maladaptive reactionary analysis that can't seem to get further than "Trump bad. Trump Russia. Peepee tape."

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

There are entire communities of tankies here on lemmy that will ban you for saying Russia invaded Ukraine. But you’re pretending it’s crazy to think their propaganda would end up in a post like this. I wonder why…

Tucker Carlson gave Putin a platform and then parroted Kremlin talking points and you’re acting like it is crazy to consider what he says as a red flag. I wonder why…

I never said anything that isn’t also being said by all the real users in this post that are being brigaded by the bots that pushed your comment to the top of the post.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 45 minutes ago)

I've not offered an iota of conjecture about Tuckers role with Russia you oblivious illterate. Develop some reading comprehension.

You don't have the mental faculties to comprehend that understanding someone, their motivations, the strategy doesn't mean you agree with them.

That makes you illiterate to understanding what it takes to oppose people like Tucker. You are so baby brained you can't understand words or what they mean. Its something we excuse children for but not full grown adults.

You have obligation to understand those you disagree with, because you can't offer a resistance to them if you don't understand them or how they operate. And this pervasive baby brained thinking on the part of liberals is half of why were in this mess. Your all so used to just being consumers, to having everything chewed up and spit into your brain by Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein, your actual critical thinking skills are anemic.