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.
because most major media supports trump.
You mean the ones whos mega-rich owners are being promised massive tax cuts by trump? Those very same ones?
I’m shocked to my core. I’m glad I was sitting down when I read your comment.
But but but there’s no direct physical evidence of these major media owners handing giant round bags of cash with big dollar signs on them to trump personally while they twirl their moustaches!!!
Don’t you see - we can’t know if they support him or not!
/s obvs christ some people on here are russian trolls or steadfastly refuse to understand a goddamned thing
A lot of them aren’t just in it for the tax cuts but because they like the ideology.
What if they disguised their sociopathic greed as ideology?
You forgot the racism.
Imo, when it comes down to it, a lot of them won’t give a care what colour their wage slaves are, in much the same way that most of them aren’t really Christian or are secretly gay etc.
Imagine having to come out as a non-rascist to your conservative parents
Fuck that
They make feinting chairs for a reason, after all 🤔
Fainting is passing out. Feinting is bluffing.
I suppose that poker chairs would be Feinting chairs.
Or mimics
Those too.
Lol my bad 🙃
And the few sources that may not be owned by Trump-backing Nazis still have to have their horse race. They want to make it seem close to get clicks and sell ads.
Trump is the best thing to happen for News Media since 9/11.
And they would do anything to have another 4 years of people obsessively watching/viewing/clicking all day every day to see what insane thing hes done to the country next.
The truth is not better but there’s some nuance. Major media do not usually care about being for or against fascism. They care about clicks, and following “journalistic ethics” that boil down to Enlightened Centrism™ and bothsidesism.
Their billionaire owners don’t even have to interfere (most of the time). The system self-selects to make money through a shared set of beliefs in what constitutes “proper journalism”. This makes journalists, as a profession, ontologically incapable of fighting against fascists. They truly, honestly, firmly believe that “Fascist about to win US Presidency” is not a statement of fact.
It’s the same ideological pitfalls that makes Serious Media pit science against whichever anti-science fad is trendy right now. Vaccines, “climatic skepticism”, etc. anything goes and the journalists in charge truly genuinely from their heart believe that is a fair and balanced approach.
Not to say there aren’t actual conspiracies from time to time of course, but even actual independent traditional journalism has generally failed to accurately report on the rise of fascism.
No, they definitely care for Trump to be elected. Major media is owned by oligarchs. Oligarchs support fascism. Plan and simple
Like most conspiracy theories, there is a huge grain of truth there. Bush should have done 9/11 because it benefitted him in literally every way. Yet he did not.
Today’s WaPo scandal illustrates the more real situation quite well: usually the billionaires take a mostly hands-off approach to owning a paper. They don’t need to meddle. The journalists are ontologically incapable of being truly disruptive regardless of if the paper is owned by Bezos or funded by an independent government committee. That Bezos presumably felt the need to prevent the WaPo from endorsing Harris was unusual and a big enough deal for the journalists to raise a big stink. And as someone who lives in a country that has a strong tradition of independent and state-funded journalism (that doesn’t shy away from criticizing the government)… I can tell you it’s not very different from the rest. Certainly not as left-wing as it gets, and just as vulnerable to the fallacies I described.
That is not to say there is no outright corruption of big prestigious papers, or that oligarchs owning the press isn’t a massive, glaring threat to Democracy. But beware of oversimplifying such issues. For one because you might regret making such sweeping statements when the billionaires actually decide to wield their power, Murdoch style. And for two because you might be disappointed to find that prestigious independently owned papers aren’t so much better. Don’t expect them to start printing Marxist pamphlets any time soon if that’s what you are into.
No, we are not talking about Marxist. In fact I said fascists which you keep stesteering away from. Who pays you toispread propaganda?
…but the magabrained keep telling us that the corporate media is all liberal! Their proof? Supposed polls of the help at those MNCs. I’d like to know in what universe the help determine the direction of a MNC.
Fucking propaganda machines.
Major immediate supports the GOP. This is hardly new or unique to Trump. It’s been like this for decades.
What’s new is how far down they’re willing to go to continue to do that.
“New” as in - in the last decade. Not like, new new.
With someone so stupid and weird and gross as donnie, it’s become nearly impossible to hide the corporate game.
I’ll take the downvotes, but a large part of this is because she’s a woman. “One candidate (a man) can rant about gibberish while the other (a woman) has to be perfect.” doesn’t just apply to politics, this sounds like every office I’ve ever worked in.
a large part of this is because she’s a woman.
the slogan I’ve seen on some shirts, “Good thing we are only looking for equality and not revenge” comes to mind.
the slogan I’ve seen on some shirts, “good thing we are only looking for equality and not revenge” comes to mind.
Jesus Christ, I love that so much.
For sure.
It does not help that her town hall tone was very… very … I don’t know… pleading/worrying/low energy. I almost had Hillary feelings at some points.
She had fire, spirit… her campaign has toned down a lot since the DNC… Which is unfortunate.
Edit! For the Down voters, I never said trump good… he’s horrible. I was merely pointing out that her messaging changed, probably under the directions of the DNC. Cookie cutter plain answers… everything focus grouped.
For sure.
It does not help that her…
And there it is, folks.
There is what? I can see the difference between pre DNC Kamala and post DNC, can’t you? The tone is more tempered and she is sometimes almost whiney in her conversations, way too coached.
Before the DNC she was way more relatable, joyous, and direct. A powerfully woman that I think a lot of people looked up to. Now every answer goes back to the talking points… she hardly answered any questions or committed to anything. Even her running mate toned down.
She is still a better choice over a rambling senile fascist but I think the US deserve the pre DNC Kamala and I hope that’s what they get when she is elected. A powerfully woman that is not controlled by the democratic party.
The double standards applied to her are misogynistic and the media is doing everything to samewash trump and put weight on Kamala to be perfect. Trump has concepts of a plan and the media goes on and on how Kamala should show direct policy plans and have it all figured out. Trump was president for 4 years but her track record as VICE president seems to be the point of debate. It’s disgusting.
From a non Americans viewpoint I also have to say that it probably does not help that the Dems platform now seems very close to bush republicans on a lot of things… the Overton window moved… a lot.
There is what?
there’s the ridiculous double standard.
take every critique you have for her - pleading/worrying/low energy - they all apply in spades IF NOT MORE to trump.
and no one’s questioned Kamala’s loyalties, but Trump’s talking to putin on the regular.
YET SOMEHOW THIS IS STILL A CONTEST? double standard bullshit
1000000% the double standard that is applied to kamala compared to Trump seen in the media makes my blood boil. And it should do so for everyone. But the propaganda machine of the billionaire class is very effective.
I wasn’t comparing Kamala to Trump (as there is no comparison possible, she is leagues beyond anything he can even dream of… although Id favor bernie over her any day), I was merely observing a difference between pre and post DNC Kamala. Now she feels more like a Hillary bot in the town hall.
I also believe there are no centrist or undecided voters in the US, only people still ashamed to say out loud they will vote for an open fascist.
But the propaganda machine of the billionaire class is very effective.
and their control over endorsements see LA Times & Wapo. It’s… fucking demoralizing.
BUT!
I think he did a great job. Would be fantastic to see this reaction widespread.
Oh wow… good on him. More people need to do this.
This is a result of the electoral college. It is more important to get centrist states to vote than for millions urban voters to be excited.
Edit! For the Down voters, I never said trump good… he’s horrible
No centrist cares. They see any admission that Harris is anything other than perfect as Trump support.
While any sane person can see a ham sandwich is preferrable over trump…
Of course. But that doesn’t mean that people who would prefer pastrami support Trump.
She passed the bar exam and operated as a lawyer for years independently defending special assault victims and others victims. She never went bankrupt and has been successful
Trump boasted you need to be “quite” smart to win golf club championships during the debate with Biden, he went bankrupt multiple times and raped women. He can’t even hang onto lawyers
Yet Republicans are now calling kamala incompetent
One side expects their candidates to hold some standards, the other side doesn’t care. It’s like watching a sporting event with a homer who only sees the world based on how it effects their team winning or losing. Fairness doesn’t come into play, the other side is always cheating and getting favored media exposure.
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.
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.
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.
“Better than Trump” is not an alternate worldview. This is why she’s in danger of losing.
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://therealnews.com/as-democrats-fold-to-the-gop-immigrants-pay-the-price
-
https://www.newsweek.com/dnc-2024-immigration-border-daca-kamala-harris-1942685
-
https://whyy.org/articles/harris-climate-energy-policy-domestic-oil-drilling/
-
https://jacobin.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-economic-plans-verdict
-
https://fortune.com/2024/10/01/harris-economic-plan-middle-class-discontent-politics/
she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.
You’re missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible. What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?–
I appreciate the sources but c’mon dude, you could at least format stuff a bit.
First off, to your immigration sources: they’d support a claim like “Democrats are appealing to conservatives on immigration policy”, not “Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border”. That’s a BS exaggeration.
To your link to Harris’ interview: She was asked if she trans people should have broad gender-affirming care access. Her answer was “I believe that people, as the law states, even on this issue about federal law, that that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I’m not going to put myself in a position of a doctor”. That’s a 2-for-1 answer - “decisions should be left to doctors and patients” + “To any conservatives listening, that’s not just my belief, that’s the fucking law”. Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.
To your economic sources: sure, those are food for thought. Here’re some more:
Nobel Laureate Letter of endorsement for Harris’ Economic Plan Perspective of former US Treasury Chief Economist Perspective by Economic Professor at University of Regensburg Perspective by NHC Perspectives of various other economists
Her implementation of the plan will matter more than what’s on paper, but that’s true of virtually any other economic plan she could propose. In any case “she’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth” is still a matter of what you define as “meaningful”, and I assert that your definition is different from that of the average middle American.
To your climate sources: All this is saying is that drilling may likely go up under Harris. If that were all that mattered, I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too. And I’d disagree, because what matters isn’t just reducing dirty energy production, it’s about accelerating clean energy production. So again, BS exaggeration.
> What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?
What a loaded last question. “And never do it” like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.
Yes, I know that’s probably not what you meant, but your only legitimate questions are the filibuster question and the “reigning in question” (The FDA already approves mifepristone, expanding approval doesn’t mean jack if the SC knocks it down).
To both those statements, to your entire post as a whole, and to this little quote in particular:
> You’re missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible.
I say: you’re the one missing the point, by ignoring the context of the thread you started. You opened with your opinion on why Trump’s fascism appeals to people, and you claim she has to give an “alternate worldview” to turn people away from that.
You can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS. Nor will she sway those people by talking more strongly about resolving the climate crisis, about protecting trans rights, about supporting abortion, about chilling out on illegal immigrants, etc. There is practically no one who wants her to take stronger left-leaning stances on all those things AND will vote for Trump instead. I only say “practically” because if the odds of that were say, 1:100mil, then hey, maybe a couple voters will do that. Everybody else? Not bought into Trump at all.
If you really do honestly feel Harris needs to go way farther left, then you’re just projecting what YOU want onto the people who are okay with Trump’s fascism.
That’s a BS exaggeration.
It’s literally not. They ran to the right of what Republicans wanted. There are countless articles talking about how it was everything and more than Republicans wanted and they only turned it down over politics. I can find literally dozens of these articles:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/
https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/5/24062710/senate-immigration-bill-border-security-ukraine-2024
Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.
She literally got up on national TV and when was asked a direct, completely basic question about whether or not she supported trans peoples most fundamental issues, deflected, dodged and refused to give a vocal endorsement of their rights. You can not be serious with this answer, you know how bad this looks. Literally all she had to do was say “I support trans rights” or any other generic statement but she didn’t because she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she’s hard pivoting to the right.
I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too.
Haha, incredible. Do you think that Biden IS committed to climate change? Like in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is? His administration straight up lied about ‘no new drilling’. They laughed at the Green New Deal. Democrats are all talk on the environment.
like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.
Will she prioritize it? Or will she pull an Obama who had the chance to do it but said “It wasnt the highest priority”? You think it’s just gonna land on her desk with a wave of a magic wand? Will she FIGHT for it? Or are we getting another “I think we should obey the law” in a couple years.
ou can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS.
It’s about more than one single issue. Its about having a defined set of values that you care about and can be held accountable to. Being “Not Donald Trump” isn’t that. You know why most Americans like Bernie Sanders? (Yes even the conservatives who scream about socialism) Because he’s been saying the same shit for 30 years. You don’t have to worry about him going up on a stage and wonder if he’s going to suddenly backtrack on Medicare for All with some “I think we should follow the law” non-answer. He has values that he expresses, even when they’re unpopular. Do you even really know what Kamala believes in? Or is she campaigning on whatever happens to be polling at 51% or better? For better or worse we all know what Trump believes in.
No you’re not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster or any given single policy issue. You get them to flip by demonstrating a clear set of values and sticking to them, so that when they have doubts about fascism they can look at the other side and know what it stands for. They know that there’s a moral argument to be made for any of these policy decisions because the democratic leadership has spent every opportunity to educate about them.
These people are inundated with propaganda 24/7. If all they hear from the right is about how immigrants are rapists who steal our jobs and are flooding the border like a zombie apocalypse movie, and then they go to the left to see that the Democrats kind of agree but think we should only deport 50% of the immigrants instead of 100% of them and want the border to be only slightly more lethal, what conclusion do you think they’re going to draw? Imagine for a second we had democratic leadership that weren’t straight up cowards and NOW when undecideds look to the left they hear about how the vast majority of illegal immigration is due to overstayed visas and the border is kind of a sham topic. Now they hear that the border is already the deadliest border crossing in the world by a large margin and making it 5% deadlier isn’t going to fix the issue. Now they hear that immigrants pay taxes into the system and don’t get them back out, and are the foundation of many of our industries that would collapse without them (there’s other issues here obviously). Now they hear about the cost of detaining and deporting people and they hear about what asylum means.
THAT’s what it means to present an alternate world view. If you’re offering people a choice between a Republican who is going to 100% deliver on fascism or a Democrat who barely knows what they stand for and is going to diddle around for 4 years and never make a coherent case for anything, or at best offers some Diet Republican policy, people are gonna just pick the fascist.
I can’t take you seriously. Not after you post a lazily constructed list of links, some of which are your response to me calling your border claim false, only for you then to be like “no actually wait here are more links for what I was actually trying to say”, only for the links to still not back your BS that democrats went “to the right of republicans”. (If you wanna point at anything specific to actually attempt to make your point, then go for it, but if it doesn’t actually back you then stop wasting my time with this).
Also not after you again ignore the specific question she was asked (do you support gender affirming care) and the answer I already quoted her giving (yes, it’s a matter between doctors and patients) so you can claim to know that the precise reason she used her words and not yours is “she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she’s hard pivoting to the right.”
Not after claiming to believe that Biden doesn’t care about climate change - no wait, that maybe he does, but not “in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is” kind of way, as though the policy matching that intensity (shutting off all fossil fuel production tomorrow) isn’t a move that’ll DEFINITELY get Trump elected so he can steer us full speed ahead into a climate catastrophe.
Not after acknowledging yourself that “you’re not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster” but playing that off like it’s just a random “given single policy issue”.
And certainly not after evoking Bernie Sanders as a positive figure, who is himself urging people to vote for Kamala.
The rest of your comment makes it very clear that you’re dug in, that you earnestly believe your projection onto all 70+ million people who are gonna vote for Trump, and that if Kamala was exactly the candidate you wish she was, that she’d magically sway people inundated with Fox News 24/7 because you have it all figured out.
Based on what you’ve said I wouldn’t be surprised if you either intend to vote for Stein or De La Cruz, or just want to push other people to do that.
You’re right, let’s go with Hitler instead.
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.
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?
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.
How is letting Donald “finish them” “best king of Israel” “Biden is trying to hold Netanyahu back, he should do the opposite” Trump (who admits he is on the phone almost daily convincing Netanyahu NOT TO CEASEFIRE) not going to be WORSE for Gaza.
If you even gave the tiniest of real shits about the Palestinian people, you would drop your sham “voter purity” nonsense and campaign as hard as you could for the one person who can possibly keep him from becoming commander in chief at a time when we really need an emotionally mature grown up in the White House: Kamala Harris.
They are being finished now. Biden is not doing anything to “hold Netanyahu back”. Calling me a political purist for condemning unmitigated support of genocide is disgusting. If you don’t want Trump to win, don’t come at me about it-- come at the fucking democrat leadership who apparently care more about perpetuating atrocities in Gaza than winning the election.
Trump is spending time and effort unravelling whose ceasefire deal? Biden’s.
So like a true trump supporter, you blame the democrats for what the republicans are doing.
I didn’t call you a political purist. You’re really not. I called out your sham “voter purity” where you pretend to care about Gaza and then advocate for lunatic geriatric genocidal trump to win.
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.
Why not promise trumpism with a wink, and then deliver none of it?
Because fascists can always move father right. You can’t out Republican the Republicans.
Because trumpists won’t buy the act but Democrats will.
Her supporters on the lemmyverse keep saying that’s what’s she’s doing…
Literally nobody is saying or thinking that
That’s too bad; that was the only thing left that could convince me to vote for her.
And if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass when it jumps.
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.
Yeah, because they need to convince people in the middle to vote for them, and people in the middle are stupid and racist.
Yes, that’s the advantage of leading a cult.
I had a thought about this; fascism exists because there are evil but effective ways of swaying people. By scapegoating immigrants and providing propaganda, he’s doing exactly what other fascists have done (including Hitler) to great success.
It’s like any other good vs evil things, the good guys always have extra hurdles to deal with, like a super hero who has to save civilians and can’t just sucker punch the baddies. Too bad this is reality, and the good guys aren’t guaranteed to win…
it also shows how complicit media is in fascism and how any law that would enforce factual reporting by bringing conduct before a jury to decide whether intentional lying occurred by a celebrity or media platform would undermine fascistic lies.
Except half the jury would be comprised of people who either support those lies, even knowing they’re lies, or don’t care enough to form an opinion.
You would need a population that is both concerned with the rule of law and break from political teams enough to fairly examine arguments for bad faith.
We do not have that population. Any jury would be split or worse.
Realistic rebuttal: juries seem to have very easy times convicting trump in court cases.
Theoretical/contextual rebuttal: I would also note that juries are how we convict criminals in this country. If you’re saying the lesser task of just making a determination that somebody is knowingly lying is beyond the purview of a jury then our entire court of law where the juries determine far more than that should be called into question.
“liberal media” outlets are either actually run by conservatives or so obsessed with trying to appear balanced, they end up downplaying Trump and highlighting Harris issues. Combine that with the pure propoganda from conservative media, and the whole industry has a strong conservative slant…
- Real news: Trump praises Hitler
- “liberal media”: Trump praises WW2 leader, Harris eats pizza with a fork
- Conservative media: FORK GATE 2024!!! Harris campaign in shambles!
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.
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.
Can we stop putting up articles stuck behind paywalls please?
Doesn’t anyone feel like this has been the case for a long time with anyone versus Trump?
Actually, let me back that up, this seems to be a major Republican thing actually.
Democrats will follow the rules and try out an exemplary candidate up for President (most of the time).
Republicans will skirt the legality of everything possible to win with a candidate who embodies the worst human instincts and activity.
Maybe I’m the only one who feels that?
It’s been true since he started the whole Birtherism bullshit with Obama, which was totally a lie and specifically racist. Bill Adair who started Politifact just started to advertise the reality of how bad the Republicans lie with his new book. Some info about it at https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/republicans-democrats-lies-bill-adair-fact-check-politifact-trump-b2631493.html
And yet you spineless fucking cowards didn’t endorse, so your words mean nothing
deleted by creator
Bingo bingo and bingo.
She pivoted away from the base to a non existent center. These have been the core ideological principles of the democratic base for decades. And she doesn’t support them.
First rule of resisting tyranny:
Don’t obey in advance!!
