345
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Former President Donald Trump continued his obsession with crowd size on Sunday, claiming photos that showed a large crowd outside Vice President Kamala Harris’ Detroit rally last week were AI-generated. But one photographer who was in attendance confirmed to the Daily Beast that the images his camera captured were very real.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

"There's a lot, people are saying." Okay, thank you.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

whaddya know. you were proven wrong, it was insanely easy to prove, and you disappeared rather than admit you were wrong. I'm sure for years you'll be telling people how likable Hillary Clinton is. I bet you also love to rip on conservatives for being low-information, obstinate voters who won't change their minds when presented with evidence. :)

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Disappeared? You are behaving like a child because someone asked you for data. I hope you can figure out how to control your rage someday.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I have very little patience for willful ignorance.

"The sky is orange and you can't prove otherwise."

"You're dumb."

"You can't find the data because it doesn't exist. The sky is orange."

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

Incorrect. You have endless patience for your own willful ignorance and refusal to look at real numbers instead of your feelings.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

:D lol ignore that data more, chuckles

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

Nah, I think I'll look at the data, now that I have a minute.

Here's Clinton favorability among Dems 2016. 77-78% late in the campaign.

Dems did prefer Obama. Different poll and different questions but 88% of Dems chose Obama over McCain and 92% of Dems claimed they were excited for Obama. Give him the middle at 90%?

Here's Biden '20. Adding enthusiastic to satisfied is 91%. I don't know if that counts, elsewhere in the poll you can see a huge number of people were primarily voting against Donald.

And Harris in late July looks like 83% with Dems. Again a different poll. Hopefully she's more like 90% with Dems in a November instead of near 80% (which we know is reviled by literally everyone from your "people are saying" assertions).

Difficult to find and compare even measures this similar, and the numbers don't really support you. That's why you didn't want to check.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's why you didn't want to check.

I did check, found the sources proved my point, and refused to spoonfeed you.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

You cherry-picked data in an attempt to make your point, but just....proved mine? Harris has a likability problem too, and she's already at a 5 point advantage over Clinton's peak, what 3 weeks into her campaign?

Biden and Obama with 13-14% advantages? That qualifies as wildly different.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

I wanted to see the data with the Dem voters to corroborate your claim that everyone hated her. I don't really care to see across all adults after months of Donald's cultists chanting "lock her up." I also wanted to compare to other campaigns to see what "normal" numbers should be.

You couldn't find anything of the sort. You're still posting data across all demographics. And you were furious about it all for some reason, also.

Yes, I agree Obama and Biden were wildly different with numbers like that. Obama was a huge win, +8 Senate and +21 House. I guess we'd agree 90% is probably above average popular.

Is 78% far, far below average? I don't know. You certainly don't know either, you haven't looked for anything because they might run contrary to your biases.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I guess I must have struck a nerve, for you to keep trying "no you're the one who won't research, you're biased!" Truth hurts, bucko. I like that you're admitting you're wrong (like a big boy!) and I was right, but still attempting to say that I didn't know I was right. Flawless logic. Have a nice life.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You were the one posting, what, three? comments while I was preoccupied today. Now you want to project the feeling of your rage onto me, just like you wish to project about lacking the data you still have not found.

You have no data to show ~80% is abnormal because the comparisons are campaigns that were wildly popular. You have zero intellectual curiosity, you could have written that instead of being weirdly and childishly standoffish. "Look at the line, me and my pals agree it is low." Compared to...?

I hope you grow as a human.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Lol, just keep repeating "u mad". Yeah lol, Biden in 2020 was WILDLY POPULAR :). I need to remember that the Internet has 16 year-olds on it.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Oh, the data you had to be spoonfed, which you claim proves you right, is now incorrect because of your feelings. Grow up. 16 would be an improvement over your level of maturity.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Damn dude, you're really taking "no u" to another level. Go touch some grass, buddy

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You're so angry about being wrong. In your anger, you'll respond to this, you have no control.

And, when I quit talking to you, you'll post extra responses, like you did yesterday. Very angry.

There are positive ways to get attention, try some of those someday. LMK if you ever want to discuss actual data instead of your feelings.

[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago
[-] Organichedgehog@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

"I refuse to even Google this because I know i'll be INSTANTLY proven wrong", keep sticking your head in the sand buddy

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I don't think I'm any better than you are at searching. You worked at it for a while and found nothing. I'll accept that.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 5 points 3 months ago

All the way through 2018 Hillary had very poor favorability ratings. ^[1] It's hard to find like-for-like favorability measurements made recently, but according to YouGov she does seem to have slightly rebounded over the past couple of years.^[2]

The subject of Clinton hate is enough of a topic that multiple books have been written on it, both in defense of Clinton and in prosecution.^[3]

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Thanks!

I'm kinda wondering about their claim regarding 2016. On that first link if we look at the breakdown with just Dems she was like 75-90 around November. IDK if 75 disastrously low for a Dem candidate?

I'm still dubious at the idea that everyone hates her and always has. And of course still dubious that voters hate Hillary Clinton so much having her speak on one's behalf would cost their support.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And of course still dubious that voters hate Hillary Clinton so much having her speak on one's behalf would cost their support.

I can see it. It's the young voters: the ones currently driving the Harris wave. They don't like the old, they had no interest in Biden and were old enough to absorb anti-Hillary sentiment through osmosis during 2016. The campaign now is new, feels fresh and hip. For once they have a candidate they can relate to. And what do they see when they tune into the DNC - which should be a hypefest? Stuffy old establishment Dems, including much-maligned Hillary. That to me sounds like a great way to take some wind out of the sails of the campaign.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
345 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19096 readers
2780 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS