"I didn't write the article, I just posted it", even though posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it
"I'm just posting articles that I found interesting", even though they can't ever explain what they find so interesting and will shut down if asked
"If you feel that the article is against the rules, let the mods know", even though no one said Monk was breaking the rules by posting propaganda. They like to post the mod log link after someone brings it up, for seemingly no reason.
"I'm not voting for Kamala or Trump", even though a vote for third parties is just going to empower a vote for Trump
"I'm not voting for [third party candidate], I'm voting for [third party candidate]"
Something about how they don't have to explain anything about themselves even though they reply anyway
Something about a community they created to seem more genuine
Some form of sarcastic or fake "thank you" even though no one asked for their thanks, all likely to appear nice at a passing glance
Using ":)" in another failed attempt to seem nice
Calling you "friend" in yet another misguided attempt to appear nice at the surface
Demanding proof for otherwise reasonable claims (sealioning).
It seems likely the reason each one banned him is the same reason their every post and comment is sitting at < -25. People detest the anti-democrat messaging and the way it’s delivered. It’s undeniable that this user rubs enough people the wrong way that they get a lot of attention for that alone.
During an election year especially, I expect better of any social media website than to just let this shit happen.
Didn't we just do this? I swear, we just did this:
As usual, national polls are useless. We don't have national elections, and as others pointed out, the poll doesn't even say what Newsweek says it says. Numbers after the jump.
Now... ALLLLL that being said... Last time I did this, Harris hit 270 exactly. First time this year any candidate hit the magic number.
I really wish we had a rule about posts that mention polling, but don’t link to the polling. Probably impossible to moderate but it’s really low-quality journalism.
What’s ironic is the article links several other polling sources, but not the one it mentions in the headline.