1027

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 minutes ago

Trump is targeting mostly far-right evangelicals who have a common vision on what they want the country to look like. He has a lot of energy when doing so, and because of how similar their interests are he could get away with all sorts of stuff and they would still vote for him.

Harris (and Democrats in general) is the only alternative mainstream candidate that everyone else has, and that "everyone else" consists of all sorts of people with conflicting interests: liberals, neoliberals, centrists, progressives, leftists, different religious groups or cultures, varying economic demographics, racial minorities, LGBTQ, and immigrants for instance. They're trying to appeal to all of them at once, but because they don't have a shared vision, nobody is happy and they get more scrutinized. To make at least some of them happy, they need to focus on certain groups and deprioritize the interests of other groups. However, once they do that then the groups they deprioritize get angry since they no longer have representation, and the groups that are still there remain skeptical because of the history of not working for their interests in the past.

The advantage that third parties like PSL have is that from the start, they're trying to appeal to a specific group of people with a common vision like Trump is instead of trying to play both sides with conflicting groups and making nobody happy. The problem (aside from the election duopoly bought out by corporations) is that they are a very small political minority so they have no real chance of winning the election without winning over people from other groups which is a challenge, especially when there are many more unknowns when it comes to progressing than there are when it comes to reverting to a previous state so there is more fragmentation due to those sort of disagreements.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago

Can we stop putting up articles stuck behind paywalls please?

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 hours ago

This is a feature not a bug in a slaver's system.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] SupahRevs@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

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.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

The FTC is just starting to go after oligopolies.

Will Harris replace Lina Khan once she gets into Biden's seat?

[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Depends if she goes behind Israeli lobby.

[-] Dainterhawk999@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Laughing out loud bruh... A next level one liner burn... ʘ‿ʘ

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 4 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

Centrists look on Trump's base and wonder why they can't have a mindless cult too.

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

Micheal Bloomberg hates Donald Trump because he ain't Donald Trump.

[-] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago

And yet you spineless fucking cowards didn't endorse, so your words mean nothing

[-] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago

Anyone who equates "not perfect" with supporting a genocide is not worth being read and taken seriously.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Not sure that's what the op's point was

[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

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.

[-] SupahRevs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

The position is to acknowledge results of an election. That should be enough. For more information there is a ton of resources like Harris' website.

[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

they are not... a sexist, traitorous sellout and that's scratching the surface

[-] SupahRevs@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

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?

[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

What does it mean to not be like him?

That is the rhetoric that is prevalent on lemmy.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 hours ago

"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.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

Seriously? Even Fox News admitted that she handed them their own ass.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago
[-] soul@lemmy.world 18 points 18 hours ago

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.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 35 points 21 hours ago

Yes, that's the advantage of leading a cult.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
1027 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