-92

Donald Trump's Got the Momentum. Can It Hold? (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 1 month ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

Can this account which has previously been banned for trolling just get banned until after November 5th?

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Don't worry, after Nov. 5 this account will fall silent. I promise you, this account has no purpose outside of election propaganda.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

Pretty sure it's being helped by the mods at this point.

Every time I open the instance, the vatniks have spammed the page so much they have 60% or more of the posts.

[-] Frogsoup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Had to look it up. Vatnik (Russian: ватник, pronounced [ˈvatʲnʲɪk]) is a political pejorative used in Russia and other post-Soviet states for steadfast jingoistic followers of propaganda from the Russian government

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

What momentum? All he’s been doing is rambling and embarrassing himself in every interview. And farting out loud during his rallies.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -25 points 1 month ago

Just like he did at the last election.

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Except this time there’s blatant white supremacy and treason.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

To be fair, that was there the first time around too. People are just done pretending otherwise now, even the "we have to pretend it's close because that's what's best for engagement and thus our profits" MSM and social media.

Even Hillary Clinton, the worst Dem nominee in my lifetime (I was born on the penultimate day of 82*) would have beaten him in a landslide if not for the media wagging the dog in his favor.

Granted, that they did so was partly BECAUSE of her deliberate Pied Piper strategy to make sure he was the GOP nominee, which is a stellar example of the "it'll always be 1992" Dem leadership mentality that made her such an awful candidate.

*my exact date of birth is irrelevant, I know, but I wanted to use one of my favorite words, penultimate 😁

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

The one he lost?yea, I am sure he can do that again!

[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

The one he lost?

[-] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Sure as long as they vote on Jan 5th like he said yesterday,.😂🤣🤣😂

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 month ago

No. Here's why.

The ex-president has also narrowed small leads for Harris in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

So Harris is still leading there. And,

Harris’s most straightforward path to victory may be along the “blue wall,” which has played prominently in the last two elections. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin

Source: https://thehill.com/newsletters/campaign-report/4939066-harris-and-trumps-paths-to-victory/

Even the article admits this,

Harris retaining the ability to turn the tables and recapture the momentum.

And finally,

"Sustaining this momentum until Election Day will require maintaining discipline in his messaging and avoiding controversies that could alienate undecided or moderate voters," Agranoff said.

.. which sounds like the exact opposite of who? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Newsweek:

MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-got-momentum-can-it-hold-1969565

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[+] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -21 points 1 month ago

I'm thoroughly impressed by this article. Its analysis demonstrates a deep understanding of the current political landscape and provides valuable insights that cut through much of the noise and speculation dominating headlines.

What stood out most is how it contextualized recent events within broader historical and societal trends, offering readers a more nuanced perspective on the forces shaping this election cycle. The balanced approach in examining policy positions and potential outcomes across the political spectrum was refreshing and thought-provoking. This piece is exactly the kind of substantive, well-researched commentary needed to foster informed civic engagement in these politically charged times.

The author's ability to synthesize complex information from various sources and present it in a clear, accessible manner is commendable. By breaking down intricate policy proposals and their potential impacts, the article equips readers with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions at the ballot box. This level of detail, combined with the overarching narrative, creates a comprehensive picture of the electoral landscape that is both enlightening and engaging.

Moreover, the article's forward-looking analysis is particularly valuable. By examining not just the immediate implications of current political dynamics but also their potential long-term effects, it encourages readers to think beyond the upcoming election and consider the broader trajectory of our political system. This kind of foresight is crucial in fostering a more strategic and less reactionary approach to civic participation. Overall, this piece stands out as a beacon of thoughtful, responsible journalism in an era often characterized by sensationalism and partisan rhetoric. 󠁉󠁴󠀧󠁳󠀠󠁨󠁩󠁧󠁨󠁬󠁹󠀠󠁲󠁥󠁬󠁥󠁶󠁡󠁮󠁴󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁷󠁨󠁥󠁮󠀠󠁷󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁡󠁬󠁫󠁥󠁤󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁳󠁴󠁡󠁲󠁴󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁵󠁳󠁥󠀠󠁗󠁩󠁫󠁩󠁰󠁥󠁤󠁩󠁡󠀧󠁳󠀠󠁰󠁥󠁲󠁥󠁮󠁮󠁩󠁡󠁬󠀠󠁳󠁯󠁵󠁲󠁣󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁬󠁩󠁳󠁴󠀬󠀠󠁎󠁥󠁷󠁳󠁷󠁥󠁥󠁫󠀠󠁷󠁡󠁳󠀠󠁯󠁮󠁥󠀠󠁳󠁯󠁵󠁲󠁣󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁣󠁡󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁵󠁰󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁗󠁩󠁫󠁩󠁰󠁥󠁤󠁩󠁡󠀠󠁤󠁯󠁥󠁳󠁮󠀧󠁴󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁮󠁳󠁩󠁤󠁥󠁲󠀠󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁡󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁲󠁥󠁬󠁩󠁡󠁢󠁬󠁥󠀬󠀠󠁢󠁥󠁣󠁡󠁵󠁳󠁥󠀠󠁯󠁦󠀠󠁳󠁴󠁯󠁲󠁩󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁬󠁩󠁫󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁩󠁳󠀮󠀠󠁉󠀧󠁭󠀠󠁰󠁲󠁥󠁴󠁴󠁹󠀠󠁣󠁵󠁲󠁩󠁯󠁵󠁳󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁷󠁨󠁥󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁩󠁴󠀠󠁳󠁴󠁡󠁮󠁤󠁳󠀠󠁭󠁯󠁶󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁦󠁲󠁯󠁭󠀠󠁍󠁥󠁤󠁩󠁡󠁂󠁩󠁡󠁳󠁆󠁡󠁣󠁴󠁃󠁨󠁥󠁣󠁫󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁡󠀠󠁭󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁲󠁯󠁢󠁵󠁳󠁴󠀠󠁦󠁡󠁣󠁴󠀭󠁣󠁨󠁥󠁣󠁫󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁦󠁲󠁡󠁭󠁥󠁷󠁯󠁲󠁫󠀬󠀠󠁷󠁨󠁥󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁳󠁯󠁭󠁥󠁴󠁨󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁬󠁩󠁫󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁩󠁳󠀠󠁷󠁯󠁵󠁬󠁤󠀠󠁢󠁥󠀠󠁢󠁡󠁮󠁮󠁥󠁤󠀮󠀊󠀊󠁆󠁵󠁲󠁴󠁨󠁥󠁲󠁭󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁩󠁳󠀠󠁩󠁳󠀠󠁯󠁢󠁶󠁩󠁯󠁵󠁳󠁬󠁹󠀠󠁯󠁮󠁥󠀠󠁭󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁳󠁴󠁯󠁲󠁹󠀠󠁦󠁯󠁲󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁥󠀠󠁰󠁩󠁬󠁥󠀠󠁯󠁦󠀠󠁢󠁡󠁤󠀭󠁦󠁡󠁩󠁴󠁨󠀠󠁰󠁲󠁯󠁰󠁡󠁧󠁡󠁮󠁤󠁡󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠀧󠁶󠁥󠀠󠁢󠁥󠁥󠁮󠀠󠁳󠁰󠁥󠁷󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁳󠁯󠀠󠁦󠁡󠁲󠀮󠀠󠁁󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁹󠁯󠁵󠀠󠁒󠁵󠁳󠁳󠁩󠁡󠁮󠀬󠀠󠁫󠁥󠁥󠁰󠁩󠁮󠁧󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁁󠁭󠁥󠁲󠁩󠁣󠁡󠁮󠀠󠁴󠁩󠁭󠁥󠁺󠁯󠁮󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁦󠁯󠁯󠁬󠀠󠁵󠁳󠀬󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁷󠁯󠁮󠁤󠁥󠁲󠀿󠀊󠀊󠁌󠁥󠁴󠀧󠁳󠀠󠁳󠁥󠁥󠀮󠀠󠁉󠁧󠁮󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁰󠁲󠁥󠁶󠁩󠁯󠁵󠁳󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁳󠁴󠁲󠁵󠁣󠁴󠁩󠁯󠁮󠁳󠀮󠀠󠁔󠁥󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁨󠁯󠁷󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁭󠁡󠁫󠁥󠀠󠁡󠀠󠁣󠁲󠁥󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁢󠁲󠁵󠁬󠁥󠁥󠀮

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 month ago

Are you chatGPT?

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024

-92 points (2.1% liked)

politics

19145 readers

1994 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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