this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
43 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29831 readers
2137 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
 
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 33 minutes ago

At least for the first 30 pages, it appears this is a heavily notated version of the original document, so fail on that.

Secondly (again first 30 of 196 pages) it’s clear Harris list with men

Thirdly, russian-asset Jill Stein stole a fuckton of shithead voters (+11% of men in in NC) and that’s crazy, but leads to:

Fourthly, noted as “unsourced”, the report says Democrats assumed Trumps insane incompetence, outright fascist mindset, and unhinged corrupt nature, along with being a rapist, often of children, would have delivered more votes for Harris than it did. They suggested more attack ads.

I don’t think this is incorrect, but I still can’t fathom it. How are so many people so fucking ignorant of basic critical skills. There’s no one answer.

Maybe it days in the other 160 pages.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago

So it's just a pile of useless garbage because Martin hired a buddy to do it part-time instead of bringing in an independent investigator and he hid it because it's embarrassingly bad, but still tried to talk-up its importance even as he knew it was drivel until he was forced to release it and be revealed to be even more dishonest and incompetent than we already suspected.

But reading between the lines, it looks like the whole thing was intended as an effort to hide that Biden's unconditional support for Israel probably cost them the election which would have been determined by a real investigator so he intentionally brought in his buddy to fuck the thing up and muddy the waters so they can 'move on' and 'not think about what went wrong too much'.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 2 hours ago