1011
Anyone who equates "not perfect" with supporting a genocide is not worth being read and taken seriously.
Can we stop putting up articles stuck behind paywalls please?
This is a feature not a bug in a slaver's system.
It's the image that each candidate has crafted. Harris is running as an ultra-competent bureaucrat who will follow all the rules. Trump is running as an angry old fart who will break them.
Fascists in the media lionize Trump because they love the idea of a Rebel Billionaire breaking all the rules to MAGA.
And because so much of the media is owned and operated by fascists, you get a stark Trump bias.
But what are Dems going to do about it? Break up these mega-corp news conglomerates? Prosecute flagrant violations of election law by billionaire media magnets? Threaten these oligarchs in any conceivable way?
No. They're just going to get strung around by the nose, then complain that The Low Information Voter didn't see through the bullshit filling up their screens and airwaves.
The FTC is just starting to go after oligopolies. So yes, institutions supported by Democratic bureaucrats are going after powerful conglomerates. Results can be seen in the denial of the Capri tapestry merger and the language used by the judge in the case.
The FTC is just starting to go after oligopolies.
Will Harris replace Lina Khan once she gets into Biden's seat?
Depends if she goes behind Israeli lobby.
sigh
Laughing out loud bruh... A next level one liner burn... ʘ‿ʘ
It's not about being perfect. It's about not regressing to a 2004 republican. That doesn't appealt to Republicans who have moved further right and not to the left who refuse to budge.
It's willful ignorance to complain that she needs to be perfect when the people complaining are often specific about the things they care about that are being ignored.
And if those are being ignored you can be shocked they won't vote for her and you must admit she's clearly not courting those voters either.
This is either a non-issue cause she is going for exactly the voters she wants or she's willingly creating a flaw by deciding to court votes that won't be enough to win.
I don't get how this is still an argument. It's happening exactly as participants are making it happen.
Democrats credentials for presidency - they are not Trump.
Edit - In any other election cycle this is a legitimate question.
What are you bringing to the table? What is your policy position?
For both the parties.
Just because this election only party is eligible to represent doesnt mean that the questions shouldn't be asked. Browbeating undecided voters for the questions is wrong and might give the result no one wants.
they are not... a sexist, traitorous sellout and that's scratching the surface
In a two party system this is always true. But what do you mean by "Trump". What does it mean to not be like him?
What does it mean to not be like him?
That is the rhetoric that is prevalent on lemmy.
Centrists look on Trump's base and wonder why they can't have a mindless cult too.
Micheal Bloomberg hates Donald Trump because he ain't Donald Trump.
And yet you spineless fucking cowards didn't endorse, so your words mean nothing
"You criticized her for not being good at X so she did X a bunch!"
Yeah but she's bad at it and it went really poorly for her and hurt her numbers.
These people are fucking idiots.
I'd love nothing more than to see her just spend an hour straight laying into Trump and Vance with f-bomb strewn attacks and continuous heavy-handed insults. I think she'd probably convert some Republicans if she did that.
Yes, that's the advantage of leading a cult.
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.
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.
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:
- People being very opposed to one policy enough that its blinding them
- 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.
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.
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.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/07/14/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-on-combatting-climate-change-and-building-a-clean-energy-economy/ She is far better on climate change than Trump. She supports an energy transition. Trump hates wind farms.
You're right, let's go with Hitler instead.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
1011 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19107 readers
4336 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS