this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2026
381 points (99.0% liked)

politics

31771 readers
4238 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
 

Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert’s campaign said that it was “investigating some very unusual voting patterns,” as the MAGA congresswoman was on the brink of losing her reelection bid.

As Democrat Eileen Laubacher’s lead over Boebert grew slightly Thursday in the race to represent Colorado’s 4th District, Boebert’s campaign released a statement suggesting foul play. Scott Gessler, the attorney for the campaign, claimed that the votes had been “trending” in Boebert’s favor since election night, “consistently lowering the margin under one percentage point.”

“We are investigating some very unusual voting patterns and expect this election to head to a recount, one way or another,” Gessler continued.

As of Friday morning, Laubacher was still leading Boebert 48.75 percent to 47.94 percent, with 97 percent reporting. The two candidates had a margin of 3,069 votes, more than three times the automatic recount threshold of 921 votes. Boebert’s campaign could still choose to pay for a recount.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago (3 children)
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. There's more physical sensation and lube is less required.

And the skin heals faster than whatever tissue makes up the head.

Bit more work to keep clean, but I highly recommend being uncut.

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago (2 children)
[–] MrSelfDestruct@reddthat.com 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah they take a couple pieces of raw calamari and sew it on.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Idk, I think if my parents knew that I wouldn't have been so lucky.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Have you ever seen those water-wiggler/infinite tube things people used to give out as party favors way back in the before-times? It kind of works like having a built-in one of those at all times. That's why they started to encourage people to cut them off in the 1800s. People kind of forget that the whole reason Christians started doing it was prudes getting up in their feelings about men having a good wank and the corpos liking the idea of not being able to jack it without having to pay for some Vaseline or a bottle of Jergens.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Something something quantum mechanics

[–] TownhouseGloryHole@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

The real reason for the prevalence of circumcision was to discourage "self-abuse".

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

I don't think it worked.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 12 hours ago

I think it reduced infection and such legitimately, in men. So called female circumcision, aka female genital mutilation, is done to prevent sexual escapades by woman, as I understand it.