politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't think they'll struggle to attack him, it's just a question of whether it will stick and how much it will matter since he's only the VP pick. In some ways it's useful because it distracted them from Harris.
The attacks seem pretty obvious: he's a pedophile, he eats babies, Minneapolis burned under his watch, he retired from the national guard to avoid combat, he supported LGBTQ groups in high schools, he lived in China, he facilitated sending children to China, say China a lot, say Marxist a lot, say communist a lot, highlight Bernie and Hillary's support of him, etc.
Remember, they only need to villainize him to people that already think he's a villain, so nothing needs to be true or especially devastating. It's like the Fox cut-down that people responded to by being like "the reasons Fox says he's bad are all the reasons I like him!"
It's like, well, yes. Fox isn't trying to convince you. They're trying to make sure republican voters don't stay home.
Edit: oh, and tampons, I forgot they were attacking him about tampons.
This doesn't make sense to me. They need to villainize him for those low info voters on the fence of voting. Most Republicans are voting for Trump, not against Kamala.
Their problem is they want to energize their base to vote while not encouraging a wider turnout. That's the point of attacks, not to change opinions. Unfortunately for them, their attacks end up energizing their opponents base because they're so fucking stupid or actually pointing out things the opponents base wants.
"Kamala picks the vp endorsed by Sanders. This Democratic ticket is a horrible vehicle for progressive change that we must stop." That's the sort of attack that actually helps your opponent. If they let Kamala's campaign paint them as both radical and not looking for real change, they're cooked. And so far that's what they're doing.