this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
726 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19151 readers
3629 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lennybird 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well now it's funny because I hear both arguments simultaneously:

  • "Why are we talking about Biden when we SHOULD be talking about Trump!?"

  • "Why is the media giving Trump so much attention!?!?"

Regardless I'm less concerned about the past because that's written in stone, and I'm more concerned about the future that is still mutable.

[–] Kiernian 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
  • "Why are we talking about Biden when we SHOULD be talking about Trump!?"

What I mean when I utter something like this is: "why are we laser-focused on a few of Biden's relatively minor (IN COMPARISON) gaffes/mistakes/issues/flaws when the laundry list of shit that's bad about Trump is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE LARGER?"

If you count up every bad thing Trump has done that would be on looping repeat on fox news for weeks if Biden or Obama said/did it, you'd hit five digits before you got back to Trump talking about grabbing women by the pussy. It's fucking LUDICROUSLY one-sided. And non-fox stations are not much better. Think about it.

  • "Why is the media giving Trump so much attention!?!

So much POSITIVE attention.

[–] lennybird -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I am in complete agreement with your analysis here. I fully agree there is a double-standard of expectations, and quite frankly has been, for well over 2 decades.

The question is: what do we do about it?

I watched every single day of the live coverage of the January 6th Hearings that went on throughout the summer of 2022. I watched the Impeachment hearings. I watched the Charlottesville reactions. I watched all the coverage of the criminal indictments and the criminal conviction. I've seen quite a bit on Project 2025 long before Biden's catastrophic debate. The problem is: truly, nothing is sticking. Why? Because right-wing media largely controls the narrative in this country, both thanks to the injection of billionaire money and corporations, but just the prevalence of unabashed conservative media, ranging from church and AM talk radio to Fox News on in every breakroom and doctor's office waiting-room in the country. They muddy the waters so effectively that no matter how loudly we point to these problems, they have talking-point to deflect, downplay, or muddy the waters of reality... And uninformed gullible apathetic voters lap that shit up.

The only thing we can really do is not make it easy for them. We can't give them an argument that actually has legitimate substance to it, like Biden's age and cognitive capacity. Look, to me the data is clear: 75% of Americans don't think Biden is fit to run again, and that Democrats would have better odds at defeating Trump with someone else. I'm in agreement. Every single data point I can find signals Trump sweeping the election. Mostly because the guy who supposedly holds the moral high ground can't shake his ego and step down for the greater good.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I am in complete agreement with your analysis here. I fully agree there is a double-standard of expectations, and quite frankly has been, for well over 2 decades.

Good to know you do agree with Lichtman after all.

[–] lennybird -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Now that's an awfully cute strawman fallacy you've got there, buddy, but no that does not mean I buy the premise that asshole is saying in this article.

Will you listen if I explain why?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Depends on how many other incorrect catchphrases you're going to use.

[–] lennybird -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well considering nothing I said was countered, I win by default. So you better say yes or start mounting a substantive rebuttal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I could care less about a rebuttal to you agreeing that the media has constantly reported on Trump.

You do you, keyboard warrior.

[–] lennybird -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nice to know there's thinking going on over there.

Enjoy your week.

[–] lennybird -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Hahah okay yeah you too, buddy.