Donald Trump has no idea what has hit him, and it’s a joy to watch
newrepublic.com
He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.
He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.
I have to admit when I'm wrong.
I was all for Joe staying in the race, because I didn't think the Dems would coalesce around one candidate without a shit-show convention.
Now I'm glad I was wrong. Just putting it out there.
100% the same
Dude I've never been so happy to be wrong as fuck
You know what the cool thing is? Those of us who were wrong for one reason or another will actually about it. We don't pretend we were right the whole time. We don't pretend it just didn't happen.
Hindsight being what it is, I'm almost wondering if the timing was planned in advance. Biden already told us he'd be a one term president. If in 10 years they came out and said "Yeah, that was the plan from day one but we couldn't tell anyone" I would absolutely believe it.
I threw an idea out in response to a comment here right after Biden backed out and the more I think about, the more it seems likely to be right.
My theory is that the DNC likely timed Biden stepping aside so it would be late enough they couldn’t hold primaries for the nominee. It came out in 2016 that the DNC was basically rigged for Clinton to win, regardless of what voters wanted. The 2016 primaries caused dissension with voters leading to lower turnout, and I think that was also somewhat true in 2020. By waiting as long as he did to back out, Biden took voter choice out of it and helped rally everyone behind Harris.
I could absolutely be wrong, but every time I run it through my head it feels more likely to be true. And if I’m right, it is a bit sleazy. However, I have to admit I’m surprised and impressed by how it’s turned out. I didn’t expect people to rally so strongly behind Kamala, and I’m excited to be a part of it!
It wasn't "rigged" for Clinton (and I thought she was not a good candidate).
Bernie lost because less people voted for him.
If it wasn't for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier. For example, he won the Washington caucus but got crushed in the primary (which had massively higher turn out).
The fact of the matter is that the broader electorate wasn't as left-wing as Lemmy or /r/politics is.
Do you not remember all the leaks showing extreme bias towards Clinton, derision of Sanders, and even deals between Clinton and the DNC?
Or that DNC leaders argued in court that they didn’t need to hold impartial primaries and could select whatever candidate they wanted?
At the end of the day, yes, Bernie got fewer votes. But that is a small part of the iceberg, ignoring all the things that led up to it and all the biases at play in the organization putting the vote on in what I would (and did) call a “rigged” primary.
The primary was rigged before it even began. Typically when there's no incumbent you'll see several politicians make a run for the nomination. But 2016 was different. Hilary and the DNC went around to all of the presidential hopefuls in 2015 and basically told them to sit this one out because it's her turn. Hilary was supposed to waltz her way to the nomination uncontested because they didn't want a repeat of 2008. The only reason we got the Hilary vs. Sanders contest at all is because Sanders was an outsider so he didn't get the memo (or perhaps they didn't consider him a serious threat).
my own little conspiracy theory i like to think about is that biden threw that debate on purpose lol.
It'd be interesting to find this out, but given how disorganized the Democrats tend to be, I seriously doubt that's the case.
What an absolute gamble that would be. Trust me, reality is stranger than fiction.
I think you’re underestimating the effect power has on the psyche.
Sure, Biden said he would be a one term president. Sure, the DNC will do anything including breaking its own rules to avoid allowing anyone left of center to be the nominee.
But when you’re in the most powerful position in the world (Biden’s donors), you want to keep going.
I think Biden really is just too old and his brain is not working properly and he has health issues, which I believe is the only reason he stepped down, and if those in power beside him did not threaten to force him out of power in an embarrassing way, he would have been happy to have the chance to lose the election and end democracy.
Even right up to the debate, people were repeating ad naseum the absurd lie from the DNC and cable news, that Biden is the only candidate who can beat Trump.
Look at Feinstein. The people pushing her wheelchair were absolutely ready to have her run for another term, with fucking dementia or whatever her health issue is…..
Maybe! I'm not really advocating that thought, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. And I'm pretty happy to say I was wrong in thinking the DNC would be a total shit show of competing interests. She's not my perfect candidate, but honestly no one is and I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good. Plus I like Walz.
That was one of the most fucked up things I've ever seen in politics. She was more mostly dead than Westley in The Princess Bride.
I’m torn, I really like Walz, but I also can’t in good conscience vote for someone who supports the genocide in Gaza.
I’m very thankful I live in a blue state.
I’m open to Harris walz but I need something to happen to end this genocide before I can take them seriously.
I’m so glad folks are getting excited about Harris walz though….
Edit: I suppose downvoting this comment means you openly support genocide, so I could give fuck all other than seeing how sad and pathetic your life must be to be in full support of suffering of this scale. 138,000 dead Palestinians, which is most likely a very low estimate, close to 10% of the population is now dead.
As a preface to this, I'm not the one downvoting you. I also think what's happening is abhorrent.
Since you're in a blue state, it's not nearly as big of a deal. However, for anyone reading this in battleground states, remember that the only alternative who actually has any shot of winning in FPTP electoral college is Trump who thinks Israel should "finish the job".
I'm pretty sure you know why you're being downvoted. If we want more real options we need to start working towards any system that isn't FPTP electoral college bullshit.
I’m being downvoted because of libtard blue no matter who neoliberal folks who only watch cable news.
Yes, I know exactly why, and it’s very sad that they can support genocide so flippantly
And if this hurts your feelings get over it I guess there’s a fucking genocide going on and you’re in support of it
What about "Trump who thinks Israel should “finish the job”." did you not hear? What makes the opposition, Trump, more worthy of your vote?
But you take Trump seriously?
This is definitely a whatanoutism.
What about Trump. I’m not talking about Trump, I’m talking about the current vice president and president
Again, I ask you, what part of Biden is currently directly supporting genocide do you not understand?
I don’t give a fuck if it ends democracy or whatever boogeyman the dems are threatening this election cycle, much as they have done since I have been old enough to vote. Every time I have gone to vote, in fact. But this time it’s real?
I don’t give a fuck. I am not going to vote for a candidate who defends and directly supports a genocide.
There’s no lesser of two evils here. What the fuck is wrong with you. You either don’t know what a genocide is, or you don’t believe Palestinian lives hold any value in the world.
Which one is it?
This is pretty brain dead of you. It's not a boogeyman, it's just reality.
I understand being angry at the current admin. I don't like Kamala either. I don't like the genocide. I disavow the genocide and I wish Israel's apartheid regime was dissolved.
Now let's face facts. The Trump admin did a lot of damage. And honestly, the Biden admin has allowed for a lot of damage to continue. And maintaining that honesty, I think the Harris admin will not be much better.
But this is absolutely a choice between an evil and a lesser evil, and to disagree with that? Fucking stupid. You want to make a difference? Too bad. Your vote isn't going to solve the genocide. Your lack of a vote isn't going to solve the genocide. Nothing you can legally do is going to solve the genocide.
If you want to do something about it, then you should. But if your idea of "doing something about it" is not voting for the democratic ticket... it isn't productive. Maybe spend that energy differently.
I live in a red state so I'm voting third party anyway. But if the alt right is allowed to proceed with project 2025, let's see how long we have before we are dealing with our own genocide, huh?
Wake up call: literally every admin has supported the wanton murder of civilians. Literally every admin has blood on their hands. Literally every admin is a war criminal.
Advocating for not voting for the Harris admin won't do anything about it.
No. This is genocide. There is no room for debate on this issue.
If Harris does not come out unequivocally and with actual action against the genocide I can’t vote for her.
Period.
These are the facts. She has to earn my vote as well as the tens of thousands of uncommitted voters in swing states to win this election.
I don’t care if you or any other blue no matter who folks disagree.
I'm glad everyone feels this way, I do too. I thought with Joe we had pretty solid chances of winning, but now with Kamala I think we're going to win by a lot more than Joe won by last time around.
Same here. What a pleasant surprise this whole turnaround has been. I was certainly pesimistic that the Democrats would somehow make the situation even worse, like perhaps bring Clinton back.
The Democrats will nominate George Clinton before they nominate Hillary again.
Hey now, we're only halfway there. Between Biden, Hillary and likely protesters for Palestine it can still be a shit-show convention.
Though fiercely hope not.
I love how Trump's treatment of the Kurds gets a free pass from those protesters.
Or, you know, this? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna141905
For those who hate clickbait:
The Repub leadership seems to be clamoring for taking actions on a spectrum between deporting protesters to Gaza or simply nuking Gaza.
I love how Trump's promise to deport those protesters gets a free pass from those protesters. My brother is one of them, always ranting about "Genocide Joe" and hating the Democrats passionately despite being (ostensibly) liberal. It's like in his universe the Republicans don't even exist, and I just can't understand his viewpoint.
It's plain as day: They think their "conscious will be clean" and to them that's more important than the lives of millions of Palestinians.
Or maybe they're upset about their friends and families being killed?
Apparently, there's a giant far Left majority in the USA, and the only thing holding it back is the DNC.
[better add the /s, because someone is going to explain that it is true.]
I would bet my next paycheck that most of them probably could not even explain what he did to the Kurds.
Most of them didn't know (or knew and did not care) about what Israel has been doing to Palestine for decades now, and were told that this is somehow Joe Biden's fault or some shit.
To be fair (and I was a great supporter of Dark Brandon), Joe Biden has been a huge supporter of Israel including derailing Hillary Clinton's attempt to stop settlement construction (when she was secretary of state).
You do realize that there are Palestinians who live in the US, yes? And they're upset about their friends and families being slaughtered right now? And you're turning your nose up at them and saying, "What about the Kurds, tho"
What Kurds
😢
(I know about it. I'm making a dark joke.)
Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
This is whataboutism.
Any time you point out hypocrisy it's a 'what about.'
Absolutely none of those protestors believe Trump would be better for Palestine. They believe genocide is criminal, and immoral — and can't in good conscience stand behind anyone who supports or enables it, regardless of the threat of something worse.
It may not be diplomatic or cunning, but it isn't rocket science. It's called morality and conviction. Don't be disingenuous.
It's not being 'disingenuous' it's about living in the real world.
Back in the day, there were escaped slaves and women who couldn't vote who worked for politicians who couldn't assure them that, if elected, they would be able to actually change the laws.
There were plenty of African Americans who volunteered for WW2, knowing first hand about the Jim Crow laws. They decided that supporting the US was the best way to stop something worse.
If you fight against a Joe Biden, knowing that the Trump will be worse, you're not being moral.
I don't think you, or other idiots who were willing to give up their vote to allow Trump to win an destroy Palestine, have any fucking idea just how bad it will get if he wins.
Maybe your conscious will be clear, but you will have been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Palestinians due to your inaction.
That is the reality.
There is no "do nothing" here. Doing nothing is tantamount to aiding in the complete destruction of the Palestinian state and its people. You should be ashamed.
Using that logic, the people who supported Biden are directly responsible for the 40,000+ Palestinians who've been killed during his presidency.
Well you're wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, I'm not American. Secondly, If I were American I would've voted Democrat my entire life, including for Biden and any corporate whore they put forward in a skin suit — probably longer, and more well-informed about the nuances of modern American politics, than you ever will be — but just because I'll suck it up and eat the shit sandwich doesn't mean I'm not gonna call the Democrats corporate whores or genocide enablers, because that is what they objectively are.
There's a real simple solution here. Stop funding and arming a genocidal ethnostate! What a radical concept, huh?
Then I'll explain how the political system works.
A lot of people in the USA like the ethnostate and are happy to keep it going.
If the people who oppose it try to just cut funding they will be voted out and can do nothing.
Mate, I already know America's a proto-fascist failed state. You're not making a solid case for the continuation of American democracy if the majority support genocide. The majority of Germans supported Hitler. But congrats, I guess?
Luckily for you, even with a media wholly owned and operated by an oligarchy who profits from eternal war, there is a solid division in supporting the ethnostate among the people. They just care more about domestic problems and defeating Trump than the oligarchs crimes in the middle east. It's understandable, considering most of what the people actually want is completely ignored by politicians on both sides of the aisle anyway.
Don't forget boogaloo fellas and local cops who have been taken in by some kind of propaganda and left-wing useful idiots who got all spun up on internet nonsense to think that the best way to help the Palestinians is to make sure Trump gets elected. I hope not, but the convention has the potential to be a fuckin atom bomb of colliding toxic forces.
I said it before about Biden and I'll say it again about Kamala: the one thing that could sink her chances will be to burn the bridge with pro-palestinian protestors.
It's not up to protestors if Kamala looses, it's up to Kamala.
This is domestic abuse logic
"I have decided to do X, which outcome will be catastrophic, if you do Y. So therefore, if you do Y, it's going to become your fault what will happen."
If you wanna push the Democrats to better outcomes on Gaza, sounds fuckin great. I definitely think that the activism so far has woken them up + it's clearly better than just the only voice they hear that has any teeth being the Israel lobby. But don't play games with the placement of responsibility.
Did I send you the Ralph Nader interview where he talks about how to apply this principle (specifically to the Democrats, I think specifically as pertains to Gaza) productively instead of terroristically?
Then who the fuck are you complaining about?
That's what the protestors are doing you nag, maybe you should stop comparing them to domestic abusers
I am complaining about the people who are trying to make the Democrats lose the general election, with no particular plan to translate that into good action from the Democrats on Gaza, all the while congratulating themselves about what a great and noble thing they're doing. I can cite many of them on Lemmy. I assume that they exist in the real world also, and that a bunch of them will show up this week at the convention.
I am not complaining about the people who are trying to get better outcomes for Gaza, which does in fact include getting concessions from the Democrats including withholding support. Sounds great.
If it's done strategically with the aim of better outcomes for Gaza, then fuckin fantastic. If it's done with a strategy which sort of seems accidentally like maybe it may produce mostly bad electoral outcomes for the Democrats, and not much in the way of good outcomes for Palestinians, then I don't like it.
It's fair that you asked the question you asked. Now that I've explained a little, though, does that make sense? I can't see how it can be a confusing point of view or anything you want to say literally anything to aside from "yes I can agree with that."
Here's Nader talking about good ways to do it. Fuckin fantastic.
Somewhere in my history is (supposedly; it's impossible to know for sure) a Palestinian laying out in extremely passionate detail how disgusted he is with people who are using his dying countrymen to make a bad-faith political argument to try to get the guy elected who will endanger, not just his family still back home, but also his friends and family here, in the US, here and now. I looked for it a little bit but couldn't find it. If you want to hear, I'm happy to dig it up.
There is no form of activism that does not harm the reputation of those who are being protested. And since it seems we're choosing to be vague about who it is who is supposedly crossing this imaginary boundary between good and bad faith protest, I'm going to assume it's arbitrary, based on what you personally find uncomfortable.
I would argue that a lot of the right kind of activism against the genocide in Gaza will in the long run actually help the reputation of the Democrats, because it'll involve educating the public about what is actually going on, at which point the Democrats supporting it will be unpopular, at which point they'll (hopefully 😐) stop doing it and lose this persistent stench of death about them that they currently have to a certain activist population that actually knows what's going on.
I mean I do get your point. My counter-point would be that not everything that harms the reputation of the people being protested is productive activism. It seems like you're persistently not grasping the point that I'm making here.
return2ozma, Linkerbaan, and jimmydoreisalefty I think are crossing this imaginary boundary, because they're not helping the situation or trying to educate anyone about what's going on, just persistently trying to damage the reputation of the people in the best position to do something positive, using attacks both true and false. Ralph Nader and the "uncommitted" voters in Michigan are examples of people who are not crossing the boundary; they are trying to help the Palestinians by putting pressure on the Democrats in ways that are specifically goal oriented and productive. I'm not real concerned about their actions "hurting" the Democrats, or not severely enough concerned to oppose it, because as you said, protesting against someone does (I would add sometimes) harm their reputation, and them's the breaks. Does that help make it more concrete?
IDK why you're saying I'm being vague. I'm being very specific about what behavior I do and don't support. If you want me to pick out particular people or explain what of their behavior I do and don't support, if that's helpful, I'm fine doing that too.
I'm not getting into another effort posting disagreement with you.
You're entitled to your perspective on what you view as 'crossing the line', but you'd be well advised to acknowledge that there isn't any objective standard for it.
I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it has any basis outside your personal feelings on the matter.
The democrats should be confronted by as many people as possible in support of a Gaza ceasefire. That includes convincing others that the issue requires action from them, too.
My objective standard is, what is going to help the Palestinians? And what is masquerading as that but (in large part) not going to help them but just going to risk a catastrophe for them that is continuation and widening of what's already their hell on earth?
That's not my personal feelings. I'm sure we disagree on what the outcome of different courses of action are, and that's fine, but that's why I am saying this and what my goals are in saying this. If what you're doing is the first thing then all good and I have no complaints about it.
Fair enough. You started talking to me, man. I was just talking about the convention. I'm gonna be giving criticism to people I think are making a mistake, just like you would give criticism to the Democrats or to me, if you think there's a mistake happening. All good from my side.
I mean, they're already "supporting" a ceasefire. They've been doing that. That's the issue, is Netanyahu is laughing their faces and telling them fuck your ceasefire, and they're not then escalating with him. But I don't think the issue blocking progress is just that they need to want a ceasefire very badly, and then that will solve the issue.
At the risk of repeating myself: there's no objective measure for this. Creating pressure for action always involves risking some damage, that's what activism is. Your standard doesn't mean anything for determining what level of pressure is acceptable because all of it risks damaging electiral odds to some degree. If anything, your standard would seem to suggest that the only form of protest is that which doesn't risk anything, at which point it becomes purely aesthetic.
You mean like sharing reporting on the matter? How does this exclude people like r2o and linkerbann?
Biden seems to be going all in for Harris, but according to the AP, the DNC still hasn't updated their paperwork to reflect Biden dropping out, so it could very well end up a shit show.
I think Biden will be alright to be honest, even should he stumble through his speech it's not too bad given he's not running anymore. Just look at the joint Harris/Biden adress the other day about the pharmaceutical prices. Not a great speech by Biden, but everyone is sort of in "alright grandpa, let's get you to bed" mode.
The protests can get ugly, though I truly pray they won't. But another unfortunate reaction/statement about Palestine from Harris would be bad, and worst case the protests get violent and actual fights break out - which would be bad bad.
I also don't see why we're opening the Hillary box again even though it's just a speech. But what do I know.
I hope it's a major shit-show. I want to see how Harris handles Gaza.
How about addressing the ongoing support for genocide, instead of blaming it on the people protesting it?
I got plenty of flak for suggesting Joe needed to go. The thing is, Kamala isn't a perfect candidate either but holy hell the (perceived) difference in voter attitudes is absolutely palpable. With Joe we'd have had people voting Trump just to avoid falling asleep (not supporting that at all, but the average voter operates on extremely simple heuristics).
The big danger with Biden wasn't people switching to Trump. It was people not voting at all. Democrats realized that would hurt down-ballot candidates, too.
I'll hold my "I was wrong" until the day the last votes are counted...
I don't think we have to wait for that. Biden was 100% losing, now Kamala at least has a chance.
Just another voice in the crowd to say "Same". Herein lies one of the major differences I see with "R" vs "D". One side sees learning and admitting mistakes as the ultimate sin, whereas the other generally embraces learning and changing a viewpoint as new information comes to light.
I remember writing that the Vietnam was was a terrible mistake and someone came to tell me that it was a noble cause and a moral victory.
Very true. This overall symptom has accelerated vastly since Regan.
Just to remind everyone in 2016 people had pretty much already planned their Clinton victory parties and everyone "knew" that Trump was going to lose, the polling was so clear and Trump was such a joke. Perhaps some even took care of "more important" stuff than voting because it was so sure.
So keep your excitement to take you to the voting booths rather than letting it make you complacent.
Yea while Kamala is ahead in the polls , a frighteningly large amount of people still support 45
Even then, the error % on polls is high enough that Trump could be ahead instead.
Polls post their calculated error %. If they could be off by like 5% in either direction, then that’s what they say. And if the poll shows Trump losing by 2%, with a 5% error, that means Trump could win by 3%.
Every single reputable poll that has been published shows a Trump victory within the margin of error.
I don't know a single person that has been polled. They are all guesswork.
No, they just don't have to poll massive groups, surprisingly small groups work well enough for polling.
Well they didn't prove shit when they said Hillary was gonna win. Just gonna say I'm not ever gonna trust one.
Almost every poll had him winning within the margin of error, 2016 was never certain, just like this election isn't.
Polls are all about probability. They can't predict the future. So, even though Hillary was likely to win, there was still a chance that Trump could win. Does this mean that polls are useless? No, because knowing the popularity of your candidate relative to the other candidates is important information.
I doubt too many polls could have predicted the Comey/GOP/FBI election interference, for example.
Thanks for saying this. It's Mid-August. There are two whole months in which things can go wildly off the rails. Rather than celebrating polls in mid-August, let's take this happy energy and make plans to go to the only poll that matters -- the actual election -- and make these mid-August hopes turn into January certainty. Plan the celebrations after we win in November, to coincide with Harris taking the Oath in January.
It’s astonishing how long the US election cycle is. There’s longer until the next US election than the entire campaign here in the UK, yet it’s all I’ve heard about for the past three years.
Can you guys not just chill the fuck out?
I wish. Our politics are so exhausting.
I used to go years between worrying about politics before Trump was president. I'm hoping those days can return somehow.
Yes, this. During his "presidency", I got so sick of dreading the morning's news. When I'd see someone else and they'd say "did you see/hear what he did now?", you didn't even have to ask who "he" was; you knew.
It was exhausting and the country barely survived it. I have no idea what's in store for any of us if they put his ass back there again.
"I wish I could just go back to sleep for 4 years." What a privileged take.
Not everyone wants to think about politics all day everyday.
"Make Politics Boring Again" Republicans have by-and-large politicized a HUGE number of things that should simply be left up to the scientific community. We shouldn't NEED to have hearings on whether the planet is warming. The debate should be on minutia that aims to bring equity to all humanity, and frankly that's pretty boring.
Obviously not. If people would chill out it would have to be about judging and responding to actual policy decision, instead of watching GoT political drama.
The longer the election cycle, the more politics are a show and bad policy can be justified with "election tactics".
Media companies and political consultants have a vested interest in making this take as long as possible.
The polls only look good because they're so much better than they were for Biden. It's still a toss-up, because those percentages are within the margin of error of the polls. (At least, for most of the swing states.)
And make sure you tell everyone else to get out and vote.
Offer carpools to take people to vote if you can. We need numbers at the booths. Especially if you're in a swing state or red.
The mainstream media just doesn't reflect/represent the majority of Americans anymore and hasn't for quite some time, actually.
This would suggest that the polls indicated that Hilary was more popular despite Trump going on to win the popular vote. This did not happen. The majority of Americans dislike Trump and he lost the popular vote and never had an approval rating over 50%.
However, there's a lot of reporting on polls that operate like the popular vote, despite the popular vote not really mattering.
The actual assessment is that the electoral college just doesn't reflect/represent the majority of Americans, and it never really did.
Wait, that's what "they" all say?!
Yeah, don't be so sure of winning that you get too lazy to fricking vote. And also watch out because I'm sure there will be some dirty tricks around polling stations as certain Republican areas get desperate
and there's plenty of time for the propaganda machine to find a server, laptop or some other bullshit to give people an excuse to not vote for her.
Honestly, I think this is one of the many reasons the hard right hate mail-in voting. There is less time for them pull off their typical rat-fucking dirty tricks if people already mailed in their votes.
Unfortunately I don't see Kamala winning just yet, nothing is certain, there's a lot of Trump supporters in the wood work, and the establishment liberal media play a game of "maybe if we pretend they're losing, they'll lose".
...which is wishful thinking that destroys people's grip on reality, and causes a lot of voters to not bother to show up.
The establishment media wants Trump to win, don't fool yourself.
I think it's pretty obvious that if that guy gets elected, it's going to be a shitstorm, and that isn't good for the establishment.
And yet they carry his water every day.
The newsmedia seems to be gutting him right now, except for a couple of right-wing outlets.
Are you kidding? The "establishment" (mainstream) media is extremely left. They don't like trump and do all they can to hurt his campaign.
Where do you live?
They also hated Bernie Sanders and did everything they could to hurt his campaign.
"Extremely left"
lol
Ok, maybe it's more correct to say 'totally' left or 'completely' left, but that's what it is. That's why it's called the "liberal media."
The right wing calls it the "liberal media". Nobody else does.
Do something for me. Google "the liberal media" and learn something.
The term "liberal media" is only used by those within the corporate media itself, right wing kool-aid drinkers, or with scare quotes around it by the actual left.
The term "liberal media" is a correct term because 90% of major news outlets (and media in general) lean left. This is accepted by everyone who has eyes to see.
This is a good place for you to be. It's easy to do little research and find that MSM leans left, like 95% of major news outlets do. The bias for things that are left of center in media isn't even argued by left, or right, or anyone. The only people who don't realize this are those who have "drank the kool-aid". Please, just do a couple of google searches. These major news outlets don't even really hide it. Google "the liberal media" or "major news outlets bias". Something like that.
Where is this so called extremely left media and what are they doing to hurt low t's campaign?
... NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX (fox has fallen into this group recently), etc. It's crazy that more folks don't realize this. 90% of MSM is pro liberal agenda.
Liberals know mostly know this, but they don't care because they are on their side. MSM bias for the left isn't even argued. It's common knowledge (at least it should be).
Many many local news stations are also run by this media conglomerate, and that's why you will see all these news stations reading from the same script. They have a collective agenda. Well, actually, it's not THEIR agenda, it's the agenda of a VERY small group fed to these stations to repeat.
The "liberal media" wants low t to win.
I love this for him.
We're draining his power, and we cannot stop. There can be no question that this referendum on him and the culture he fosters is wrong and cannot/ will not be tolerated any longer.
Trump: “she doesn’t like Jewish people. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it, and nobody wants to say it.”
Yeah, probably because she loves them, and everyone else as well.
If she loves Jewish people so much then why doesn't she marry 'em?? 🤪
Oh wait...
I literally laughed aloud. Thanks, mate.
Please tell me he said this.
Yes, yes he did. https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-emhoff-jewish-voters-2024-election-3024bed25abf542d7133e1ad81d86165
Her husband Doug is Jewish.
Dotard Don 🤦🏽🤦♀️🤦🏻♂️
I think Trump is accustomed to thinking his spouses are lesser beings that exist only to bolster his image and serve at his pleasure, and he probably harbors deep feelings of disdain for all of them that he can't express publicly.
So for him it totally tracks to be married to a type of person that you hate.
Women, for example
Sounds like he might want to marry a man then
It's not even a question. He literally buried his ex-wife on his fucking golf course without a headstone and then let the site become overgrown.
This isn't a bad thought but it implies that he remembers she is married to a Jewish person. He definitely doesn't. He can't even pronounce her name or pick a wrong pronunciation to go with.
And Trump's wife, mother, and grandfather are and were immigrants, but it doesn't stop him from hating immigrants. That type of inconsistency isn't an issue for him, so I imagine calling Harris an antisemite is perfectly reasonable to him.
Great point. Same with openly gay Peter Thiel who hand picked weirdo JD Vance, completely behind Project 2025, which is staunchly anti-gay.
Thiel knows that money and power trump the law (pun intended, I guess) so anti-gay legislation won't affect him or his circle.
Hey Donnie, you remember those “fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville? What were they chanting exactly?
Fucking asshole
As much as I'd like to celebrate, I can only think about how the attitude was the same regarding Hillary, and we all saw how that turned out. Fingers crossed.
People hated Hillary though. I know everyone who liked her wanted to say it was sexism but the Clinton's are fucking crooks. I don't like that Kamala put a bunch of people in prison for weed but there isn't any evidence that she killed people for political gain.
Hell, Hillary even kept Henry Kissinger around while campaigning Somehow thinking that was a good idea? Basically a hello America, look at this war criminal I am good friends with, let me talk at length about how amazing this war criminal is. To say she was out of touch would be a bit of an understatement.
To be fair, Kissinger was pretty amazing at being a war criminal.
100%. Fuck political dynasties.
Yeah. Lot of misogynists out there.
It's the truth, though... If trump could beat out Hillary, Kamala stands no chance in hell.
Edit: Quit reading into this. It's an opinion based on observation. It's fine if you disagree and want to tell me why I'm wrong. I welcome that. But assuming I'm pro-trump or anti-harris because of this comment is an assumption you shouldn't be making. I said nothing to indicate support for either.
The energy around Clinton was different, even most dems weren't thrilled with Hillary and she was unpopular with undecided voters, meanwhile we know and have seen the threat that is Trump, and Harris is fairing better so far.
We'll see of course, but it's not as similar as it might seem if you're just saying "Woman vs Trump is the same"
I agree. Doesn't feel the same at all to me. Kamala is a likeable person and candidate.
Also Waltz was a great pick for VP
I wish you were joking.
Why? Clarify for me, I've only seen relatively good things about him.
This is from a more detailed comment I made:
"Tim waltz (and family) finances. Facts: Tim owns no stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs. He owns no real estate, investment property, or otherwise (neither does his wife). He also has no 401k, IRA, or any retirement fund. His net worth is estimated to be 115,000$ to 330,000$. All this is not great, considering he's 60(ish?) nearing retirement. the average net worth for congresspeople and senators is around $1 million. His only legitimate source of income is his pension.
Pros or cons, we can decide for ourselves if all this makes him a better candidate for VP or not. We can make some assumptions, and one assumption I can make is that waltz personally seems to be financially ignorant.
There are other pros and cons about Waltz, but as far as finances, Tim Waltz is a scrub. And I think that these facts are very important when considering electing him into a position where he's at the controls for financial decisions for an ENTIRE country... whatever side you lean toward, all this should be concerning."
There are reasons, but what sticks out to me is that he seems financially illiterate. Neither he nor his wife own a home or any other assets. He owns no business. No stocks, bonds, securities, 401K or investments anywhere. Waltz ownz nothing... None of this is bad, necessarily, if you're a regular citizen, but I'd want/expect someone running for Vice President to be more financially savvy.
Tim waltz is a scrub
That all seems like positives to me 🤷♂️ no incentives to misue the power for personal gain in any of those particular subjects.
We've got enough mega wealthy in government imo.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/06/tim-walz-policy-record-guide-00172844
Seems like a lot of positives to me, but absolutely willing to hear anything else you might have in mind.
100%. I was so disgusted with how the democrats shoved Bernie under the rug that I voted 3rd party. I also had a small glimmer of hope that Trump would tack left on at least a few things. I won't be making that mistake again.
Are you me?
It didn't help that I knew several left leaning people who don't really get politics and voted for Trump "for the meme" not thinking he'd actually win... Dumb dumb lol
Yeah. Don’t get caught out by the fact that 74 million people voted for him last time tho. I’ve always been a fairly 3rd party leaning voter, but no more.
Well we've certainly reached hell to find out.
I already have popcorn. Have had it going non stop for years.
Wouldn't be sure:
Circumstances are different, and I don't think people were specifically excited over Hilary. I think some were excited about "a" woman candidate, but not really Clinton in particular.
FTFY
I disagree a little bit. If Biden had dropped out earlier, we would have a proper Democratic primary season and to have some other politicians run and make a case for themselves. It feels like Kamala Harris was appointed to be the successor. Of course she would still need to win the general election, but I still feel uneasy that within the party, there was no democratic process.
True, but given the timing of when he did drop out, Harris is about as close to approximating a democratic choice as they could manage. She at least was on the ticket in the 2020 election so people did technically vote for her as VP in 2020, with everyone knowing that an 80 year old man becoming incapacitated would mean she would be president. They are at least following the succession as was voted for. Any other person would have absolutely been a "coronation" of sorts on that timescale.
While you may say "but people don't really pay too much attention to the VP", I'd say that Palin tanked McCain's chances by being obviously unfit for office.
It's kinda funny because Harris was kinda seen as a non-starter for a while as the VP, even among leftists, feels like that feeling has changed recently though.
I will say it still wasn't very democratic, they could have done some kinds of snap elections if they really cared, but they don't lol.
There's no way they could have pulled off any vaguely credible election from scratch with about a months warning.
You really think that wouldn't be possible in 2024? I think it would have been a huge undertaking for sure, but damn would it have given a lot of potential goodwill 🤷♂️
My point was the timing. It wasn't good for any other candidates but the incumbent.
Even if we did voted for Harris as VP, that was 4 years ago. Democracy is not just about a one-time voting, but having regular elections every 4 years. I may have voted for Harris as the VP as part of the ticket, but I should be allowed to change my mind 4 years later to vote for someone else.
One of my biggest gripes about our two-party system is the lack of competition within both parties. Every 4 years, we are presented with candidates from each respective party and then we're asked choose the "lesser of the two evils". It sucks.
I will note the idea Harris was picked at the 2020 primaries is bunk, people don't vote on a President/VP ticket then(though that would be an interesting system). Harris was picked by Biden, and while she was on the 2020 ticket in the national election it's impossible to say how many people she swayed.
I don't think she's perfect, but unlike Hillary at least Harris was picked by circumstance, even if unfortunate circumstance, not appointed years in advance like Hillary was. (Hillary had been intending to go for it after she gained some political experience and Bill's scandal faded. Al Gore was supposed to carry the democrats, but that didn't work out, and JFK Jr who was being courted for a 2004 run died in a plane crash in 1999, so they had to work with John Kerry which didn't go well. Then Hillary was ready and initially had party favor, but Obama came in like a locomotive without brakes: All the DNC's horses and all the RNCs men couldn't stop Obama in 08, no my friend)
Also that second to last point isn't 100%, but there's a lot of rumor and evidence to suggest the plan at the end of Clinton's term was to bring in Gore, and then either when he lost or ran out his terms JFK Jr. was to be the next guy in line. Him dying and Al Gore losing put them in a tough spot in 2004.
Overconfident is an understatement. I remember people thinking that Trump was the end of the Republican party, some people actually said that the party would be forced to disband after their crushing defeat in 2016.
Even many Democrats didn't like Hillary, but the idea of Trump winning was outright laughable to many. I think that combination of "I don't want to vote for her" and "there's no way she can lose" left a lot of people at home twiddling their thumbs instead of going out to vote.
Even putting that aside, the "bad" was also underestimated.
So Trump gets 4 years before we can vote him out, he's bad, but how bad could it be.
Folks didn't think about the number of supreme court justices that would go over.
Folks certainly didn't expect January 6th to go down the way it did and for there to be lingering aftermath of "if we win again, we will overtly rig the system to prevent losing again".
So I hope people view the stakes as higher and the GOP as more dangerous than people would have guessed in 2016.
I know a lot of people who assumed she would win and later claimed their lack of voting is because of incorrect polls. Very frustrating to hear.
I heard many frustrating narratives after low t "won" in 2016. Things like "Democrats are just as bad" (so they voted for Stein or stayed at home), Hillary was gonna take all the gunz, didn't like her laugh/wouldn't want to have a beer with her, some fell for low t's ridiculous talk about what he was going to do for parents (tax credit and/or some child daycare).
Most exasperating of all were the types that were like "ACA is not perfect, therefore I'm gonna vote for the guy that will fix it". 🤦♂️
Still got the 5th most votes of any presidential candidate ever. (1st is Biden 2020 and 2nd is Trump 2020, 3rd is 08 Obama, 4th is 2012 Obama)
Hilary lost because she sucked major ass. I didn't vote in 2016 because fuck political dynasties, and the DNC did everything it could to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination, which unfortunately worked. Being less young and stupid, I probably would have voted for her if I were in 2016 again. I would have hated it though, just as I would have hated voting for Biden but would have done so. I'm not particularly excited about Kamala but she's definitely a lot more palatable with SO much more appeal than Hillary or Biden had.
The stupid thing was that they didn't need to do their dirty tricks. The things like what DWS in Arizona were well after Bernie was mathematically out of the running. I'm a Bernie fan and I voted for him in the primaries in California, but he lost on Super Tuesday (well before CA and AZ voted). He failed to capture the votes and was not really in contention.
I think Hilary lost for three reasons. 1. Republicans had their smear machine running on her for over a decade. Propaganda works. 2. Her public speaking persona was bad. I heard her speak in a more normal conversation and she sounded smart, articulate, and hitting all the right points. I was impressed. But her speech giving persona was bad and came across as snobbish. 3. Sexism. It's not THE reason she lost, but I think there was and is a vein of that running through America. "What if it's her time of the month and she has her finger on the big red button?" "Blood coming out of her whatever", etc.
I think time has proven out that she would have been a 10x better president than Trump. Just like Gore would have been 10x better than Bush. So much less death, so much better policy. If they'd been elected, the world would be a different place today. (Stupid undemocratic electoral college system)
The vast right wing conspiracy literally had decades to create a false narrative around Hillary, though.
"Time" is the greatest clarifier. This narrative you're talking about isn't made from lies about Hillary. It is about things that were called called lies at first, but then, over time, were proven to be correct. But by they time they were proven correct, hardly anyone cared about it anymore, the focus had shifted to other topics, and the MSM hardly reported on it.
It's all in the clock
80 days until election day
70 days until early voting starts in Michigan
66 days until early voting starts in Wisconsin
61 days until early voting starts in North Carolina
45 days until the vice-presidential debate
30 days until early ballot drop off starts in Pennsylvania
24 days until the first presidential debate
Can you be a bot for all the posts until then? Or is there a simpleURL.com for this?
well it ain't a bullet that's for sure
You know things are bad when the worst three weeks are after an attempted assassination.
"TFW you get shot (at) and it's not even the biggest political story of the week"
Or when the NY Times stops doing puff pieces on Trump or his supporters.
Is there a greater douchebag in this world than Donald Trump? What an idiot.
Every Communist foreign leader, but yeah, he stands right next to them in that line of idiots.
China and Vietnam seem to be doing pretty well as counties. China is markedly more Authoritarian than Vietnam (which is more unionist/laborist), but both are providing livability to their citizens.
Vietnam actually has less homelessness than the US.
I heard China had dropped the ball on housing. Apparently home ownership is getting really cheap there. The poor fools. Tsk tsk.
Lets not suck the red fascists off, sons of bitches built a bunch of "tofu building" which will fall apart. Combine that with some other trite mixed in with their housing and they probably will only be cheap cause everything implodes.
Before anyone starts getting a bit too high off their own supply Harris's polling averages peaked on August 12th. They were stagnant or declining on the 13th and 14th, briefly spiked on the 15th, and that spike was completely undone on the 16th. Today is dropping again. Not big drops, like 1/10th of a point every other day(which day depends on which conglomerates you use), but the growth trend is over.
Agreeing that it is wise to not grow overconfident.
We still are far from winning this battle.
Canadian, not my fight. Our liberals ain't doing so good
Today is an all time high on slightly right leaning RCP, and a slight rebound on 538(But not to 12th/13th/15th levels). More like 16th or 11th evening. RCP tends to lag a bit on D rises and vice versa for 538 so we'll see. Still suggests the overall strong growth trend passed and we're nearing a ceiling. Not a bad ceiling, a winning ceiling, but it's there.
it's also only a matter of time before Fox News finds some kind of bullshit to sink their teeth into that changes swing voters minds.
“Mock the devil and he will run from you”
Watch out, this may mean he's going to take the low road a cheat. Regardless VOTE!!!
Of fucking course Trump is going to cheat! In fact, his MAGA flying monkeys are cheating now, as we speak. The Trump campaign is recruiting literally 100,000 poll "observers" (read: saboteurs) to help it cheat. "Donald Trump and the MAGA movement’s coup attempt on Jan. 6 never stopped."
The Trump campaign's main strategy for 2024 isn't to actually win votes. It's to deliberately interfere with the counting of the votes and cast so much FUD on the process that as many states as possible either won't (because they're MAGA-controlled) or can't (because there was genuinely that much disruption) certify their votes. In other words, he wants to file dozens of lawsuits challenging the results again, but manufacture valid bases for them this time. Combine that with the chaos of more Jan 6-style violence, and it's very likely he will succeed in getting a decisive number of swing states decided by the Supreme Court a la Bush v. Gore -- and not only does the Supreme Court have a MAGA majority, three of the fucking "justices" were lawyers on Bush's side in that very court case!
This is why Trump is going around telling his supporters that they won't have to vote anymore after this election, and why he doubled down on it when given the chance to walk it back. He has every intention of so thoroughly destroying Americans' trust in Federal elections that four years from now he will simply make a dictatorial decree that it is pointless to have them and he will simply remain in power indefinitely.
Trump is 100% committed to seizing power and being coronated as America's king, votes be damned.
More people need to be taking about this. The only way to stop it is to shine as bright a light as possible on it.
VOTE!! and also there is NO QUESTION his fart sniffing followers will CHEAT FOR HIM — let’s all get this through our heads NOW
There is already cheating with gerrymandering and reduced voting areas in specific places in many places, so even if you see lots of activity that suggests a major win for Harris, vote anyway to cover those whose votes will be suppressed. That we even have to plan for that in a country that touts voting as a right is insane.
Here's where to check your status or register
People know Trump is a genocidal white supremacist Nazi and the world isn't populated by cisgender white males.
You know, you can be a cisgender white male, and still hate Donald Trump.
Can confirm
Yup
General Mattis has entered the chat.
Angry orange will never stop flailing. Hes simply out of his depth and all the life preservers being thrown to him are just so much wet paper and about as effective
He's drowning and they're tossing him rolls of bounty like he did the people in Puerto Rico.
"Forget it Donny, you're out of your element!"
Best part is watching him eventually get convicted. Tic tac, orange man.
i think you mean sentenced
Convicted again*, he's already got 34 felonies.
Eventually?
"Prices... YOU'VE BEEN BAD! Folgers! Rocky road! BABY RUTH!!!
Because kamala harris is playing checkers whilst donald trump is playing tic-tac-toe.
This was dumb in 2016 on /r/thedonald, and it is dumb now
I didn't know it was already a thing. I assure you i made that up on the spot. If someone else already made the joke, then i didn't know. But im glad im not the only person who thinks it's funny.
He's playing Snakes and Ladders (Chutes and Ladders?) in 4D. The man's a genius, I tells you.
trump is playing bingo.
For anything Trump says; what did you expect? Something better?
Well, we should.
And here she is.
It didn't hit him, maybe only his oversized ego got dented, a man behind him were hit, this guy should be in media on a daily basis, not Trump. DJT was scratched only.
He's a narcissist to the degree of it being a mental illness, I don't think most people are aware how little reality these people let into their psyche, to protect the image they have of themselves. There is no dent, this simply didn't happen for him.
https://archive.ph/8mDHK
::: spoiler New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for New Republic:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://newrepublic.com/article/184951/donald-trump-flailing-harris ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
I love this storyline but I am reserved about the narrative from New Republic. A lot of their reporting comes off tabloid-ish.
Oh geez.. I swear, this sub is becoming just like r/politics... one sided.
That's because there's only really one reasonable side. What, do you WANT to see antivax misinfo in here?
Now, that's not fair. Conservatives offer more than just antivax misinfo.
They also have misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, anti-education, climate denialism, billionaire worship, war-mongering, domestic terrorism cheerleading and so much more!
Oh yes, how could I forget their main platform? :-)
If you want to see more pro-trump articles posted here then be the change you wish to see in the world: post them yourself.
You can't be sane and support Trump. You just can't. There's no debate here. He's a lunatic and people who support him are lunatics.
Key-rye more
It is?
Democrats should not be supporting genocide. Netanyahu should not be able to buy candidates.
Now watch what happens.
You say that as if Trump, as the Republican nominee, would do anything better with Israel
Not only is it possible to be upset about genocide (you should try it sometime), it's also possible to be upset about genocide without being a Trump supporter.
Thank you for proving the point I was making.
Absolutely, 100%... but you didn't bring that up in this specific post and context because it was a standalone point. You were already bringing the us vs them narrative and now are playing the pearl clutching.
My only mistake was feeding the troll here
Nice whataboutism.