this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
706 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
5049 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
[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean, with Trump running the race is still basically a dead heat, so I'm not sure how lucky they really are.

[–] meco03211 63 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

We're not unlucky because trump is running necessarily. We're unlucky because half the fucking country doesn't see what an insane and horrific choice he is.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm really scared for future elections when the GOP has a candidate that is actually charismatic or articulate....

[–] MrVilliam 21 points 3 weeks ago

They're kinda proving that those are unnecessary, though. They're in uncanny valley and espousing literal Nazi ideology and still getting elected. At that point, why even buy lipstick for the pig in the first place? Their dog whistles have been packed up in boxes in the attic for years. Echo chambers that blame scapegoats, vilify opponents, and deify their candidates are all that is really necessary. They can literally get away with saying "well, Hitler had some good ideas too, though..." and the base will lap it up and show up to cast their ballots.

Charisma and articulation are off-putting to their uncharismatic and inarticulate voters anyway. That might actually do more harm than good. Because "talking good is gay" or something. It's dumb but it's how they feel, and their feelings don't give a fuck about facts.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

I think they do see it. They just think that's a good thing.

Enough people think competence is 'controlling' and education is 'pretentious' that they want pathetic, stupid, harmful bullshit.

The purpose of the system is what it does, and the purpose of an ideology that discriminates is the people it chooses to harm, and the ways it finds to harm them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

She's running against arguably the worst candidate in American history and it's still a dead heat, what does that tell you?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Harris must be a nasty woman like Hillary Clinton. It can't be because the other side has been propagandized until it went nuts.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Super healthy and helpful mindset /s

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm guessing they were being sarcastic. Unfortunately a lot of people have yet to realize sarcasm is anything but obvious online, at least not in this day and age.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Guessing? That was obviously sarcastic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think I understood their sarcasm. They think I'm engaging in misogynistic tendencies and do actually think Trump voters are "nuts".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Traitor voters are nuts. Why else would they be voting for America's Hitler?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

For the record, I don't know if you personally judge Harris as a woman. I have no reason to think that's true, and I don't know if you hate Hillary, let alone your reason if you do.

But I think a lot of the hate for Hillary was misogynist, and many people made the argument that if Trump is awful, Hillary must have been worse to lose.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

I think I understood the first paragraph before your comment but thank you for the clarification. And I do generally agree with your second paragraph as well. I do think it's a bit reductive and is often used to draw attention from the more substantial reasons.

Also deciding people are nuts is a great way to alienate and isolate them which will only entrench those ideas and can further radicalize them.

[–] SeriousMite 6 points 3 weeks ago

He might be the best candidate for hateful idiots though. The guy’s a chud whisperer. I’m not sure if any smarter more articulate Republican could hold together the same radical coalition.

[–] marx2k 1 points 3 weeks ago

You could have a cockroach running against a smoked cigarette that's been hydrating in a coffee cup for a week and as long as the cockroach was a Democrat and the cigarette were a republican, it would still be a dead heat.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

The alternative, if the republicans had a candidate that wasn't a weird 80 year old billionaire, the democrats wouldn't have a shot in hell, facilitating a genocide while endorsing 90% of republican policies from 2016 and promising what amounts to fuckall help to most people.