1029

Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped "wars with France," after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to "close the deal."

...

Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.

Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Talisker@lemmy.world 36 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Weird that this has to be explained this late into the game but…

Trump is running on the promise of enacting fascism and using state power to mete out retribution to the ‘undesirables’ that his voters blame for their lack of power. To this end there is nothing he can say or do that will make them not vote for him. He is promising power and as long as he wins his promise is kept.

Kamala is running on a platform of ‘not fascism’ and to that end she does need to provide a coherent alternate worldview to mindless retribution. It’s not enough for her to walk the middle of the road and say as little as possible. She needs to give people a diametrically opposed worldview. She needs to be capable of explaining why fascist retribution isn’t good or helpful. She can not just be a diet Republican. She needs to have coherent answers to their obvious bullshit.

Hope this helps. Horrifying that the people who are a decade into Trumpism and ostensibly responsible for stopping it don’t seem to have the slightest clue what motivates it or how to counter it.

[-] aalvare2@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

It sounds like you’re coming at this from the perspective that Trump voters like Trump because his fascist talk makes them feel like he’ll wield Presidential power to “fight the evils of the people at the top of society”, but I disagree. I think for a lot of Trump voters it boils down to at least one of a few feelings:

a) abortion is murder, I’ll vote against the side that clearly supports abortion more

b) Immigrants and LGBTQ+ people are the devil

c) I want to afford the stuff I wish I had, and Trump will help me do that.

d) Every left-leaning person of power of any kind is a demon and should get what’s coming to them

IMO only the MAGA voters care about d). The average non-MAGA-but-still-Trump voter doesn’t care really care about “shadowy figures” “getting what’s coming to them”, they just want better lives for themselves as in c). 

To sway those people, she doesn’t have to provide a “diametrically opposed worldview” to fascism - that makes it sound like what you think she needs is to run on creating a completely different way of living. It just means appealing to those in the camp of a), b) and/or c). Swaying believers of a) or b) without actually appealing to anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, or anti-LGBTQ+ reform is tricky, and tackling c) comes down to her positioning herself as the better candidate economically, but people in that camp have varied ideas on what’s best for the economy, so that’s tricky too.

But regardless, everyone who cares about the election and isn’t already in any of those camps isn’t gonna vote for Trump anyway, no matter how Harris campaigns.

[-] b_n@sh.itjust.works 18 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

She has been talking about a different way of doing things though, I got the feeling she talked about many policies in the debate that people have ignored.

Non American here, but it really feels like there is nothing she can do to shake the non-trump thing. Lemmy is full of "Trump bad", but I'm missing the "Kamala good". Its as though no one wants to say it, and it feels like it always comes back to Israel. That is understandable too, however she is not a one policy candidate, however it feels like that is how its reduced.

Honestly I get the feeling that its either:

  1. People being very opposed to one policy enough that its blinding them
  2. Literal trolls trying to make enough noise to make it a trump vs. Non-trump to disenfranchise the voters

I want to see the "Kamala stands good on policy X" posts here. They should exist but where are they?

No I dont condone the Israel shit, but there has to be more to it. That's too simple.

[-] Talisker@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

Is she?

She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights. Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border. She is pro imperialism. She isn’t committed to climate change. She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews? She’s not even that strong on abortion rights.

[-] aalvare2@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights.

Not sure exactly what you’re referring to, but if you’re referring to the Fox News interview, I think she addressed trans rights as well as she possibly could’ve to…a Fox News audience…without completely losing them.

Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border.

I call BS.

She isn’t committed to climate change

That’s too strong a statement. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal, gave an entire speech about climate change at COP28 and again this past July, and has an entire “Lower Energy Costs and Tackle the Climate Crisis” section on her issues page. On top of that, actions speak louder than words, and the one meaningful action she can wield as VP - casting tie-breaking Senate votes - was used to enact the Inflation Reduction Act, which works in a meaningful way to combat climate change.

She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews?

Idk what your metric for “meaningful wealth redistribution is” but the kind of “wealth redistribution” many middle Americans want is the kind where they can afford to start a new family, and/or afford their first home, and/or afford to start a new business. All of those have been addressed explicitly by Harris and her policy plan, and they go meaningfully beyond what we have now. Your other comment that she’d ‘raise the top marginal tax rate by 5% or whatever’ makes it sound like that’s literally the only action she’d take to make the lives of middle-class people better.

She’s not even that strong on abortion rights. 

You’re not outright saying she’s weak on abortion, b/c I think you and I both know she isn’t - she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.

[-] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago

You're right, let's go with Hitler instead.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml -2 points 16 hours ago

It's not just "one policy" though. That kind of reduces it to a bloodless difference of opinion or something. We're not haggling over tax rates or something, this is a literal, ongoing genocide. If Kamala is wrong on genocide, she can't be "good", no matter what other policy positions she has.

[-] b_n@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago

Sure. I totally understand that, but the stakes are different during an election in a system which at this very moment cannot and will not change. It serves to disenfranchise people.

You can and should campaign about this issue. At the same time, the stakes at present are not about whether the US will exit Israel or not. No amount of disapproval will change that fact, so why not focus on the things that will change, and come back to this later?

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 hours ago

There's no "coming back to this later". People are being slaughtered as we speak. Later is too late. If we swallow this, then we've lost everything.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

does need to provide a coherent alternate worldview to mindless retribution

Talking about a border wall is hardly coherent with rejecting mindless retribution. Harris and Waltz aren't at all blaming the elites for working people hardship, but they do blame the immigrants as well, more indirectly but still.

[-] Nalivai@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

Yeah, because they need to convince people in the middle to vote for them, and people in the middle are stupid and racist.

[-] mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Why not promise trumpism with a wink, and then deliver none of it?

[-] Talisker@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Because fascists can always move father right. You can’t out Republican the Republicans.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Because trumpists won't buy the act but Democrats will.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml -3 points 23 hours ago

Her supporters on the lemmyverse keep saying that's what's she's doing...

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 5 points 12 hours ago

When you sign up for a ml account, is there a test you have to take where all the correct answers are opposite of reality?

[-] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

Some people (like me) just connect to lemmy the first time and end up on .ml without choosing it. I have no recollection of being given a choice.

[-] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 9 points 17 hours ago

Literally nobody is saying or thinking that

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml -2 points 12 hours ago

That's too bad; that was the only thing left that could convince me to vote for her.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it jumps.

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
1029 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3525 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