855
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
855 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2278 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Donald Trump is not a smart man. He didn't become the threat that he is due to his own skilful manoeuvring. He became a threat because the institutions that are supposed to oppose people like him have failed.
Now that, for the first time in his political career, he's up against an opponent with basic competence he can't do anything other than flail impotently.
I didn't care for her, but Clinton I would say had more than basic competence, though she didn't really have much charisma, is pretty unlikable, forced out Bernie Sanders, chose a completely forgettable running mate, was running as an establishment candidate in a "change" election, and has a blatant desire for power. It all worked against her, though she did still win the popular vote. Still fairly competent though.
I would argue Harris is in a similar situation as Clinton, though she apparently had the sense to at least pick someone more likable than herself and her almost invisible tenure as VP actually may work to her advantage. Otherwise, she's not incredibly charismatic on her own and could be in trouble at the debate with Trump, though his elderly, stroke-addled brain may help her out.
But if it gets into the same sort of thing like in his debate with Biden, where Trump is just throwing out BS bombs left and right, and all Kamala does is just uselessly flail around trying to address his BS points one by one, I think she'll be in trouble. She needs to cut through the BS and present herself as the adult in the room, and make Trump seem infantile and ridiculous.
Wait. Who was her running mate in 2016? I legitimately don't remember. Wow.
Kane?
Edit:Kaine
Tim Kane. I watched his debate with pence and was impressed.
He was ok, seems like a nice guy, but just not much of a presence, it seemed obvious that Clinton didn't want anybody that was going to overshadow her, just kind of lukewarm, which seems completely opposite to what Harris did bringing Walz on board. I think alot of people are wishing Walz was the presidential candidate instead, but it is what it is and he seems like a decent enough guy that it'll good just to have him in the Oval Office in any capacity.
I had the exact same reaction and had to look it up. Hard to argue with the completely forgettable tag.
All agreed. The Clinton's are political animals, best of the best at the game, but Hilary doesn't share her husband's over-the-top charisma. She works best behind the scenes, not on camera kissing babies.
And this hilarious meme hit far too close to home.
Literally been screaming this since her time as SoS... Hill-Dawg should have run in NY's bluest blueberry of a US House district and then taken the reigns from Pelosi in 2022. She's masterful at running the inner party show... she got that "do it or I'll burn your house down" energy so few people have (liken to LBJ, Pelosi, Cave Johnson, etc).
Reminds me of this Simpsons bit. But yeah, a lot of well off people (even those that are well meaning) are just completely out of touch on how many people actually live.
I was expecting a major crisis when Harris took over since she did abysmally in the 2020 primary. She was one of the first "serious" candidate to drop out, not even making it to 2020. Shes essentially just cruising on "not an old white guy"
I actually remember her being a standout at the debates until Tulsi Gabbard managed to latch onto a line of attack that hurt her credibility as the progressive candidate that she was presenting herself as. Shortly after that traction was lost I think she saw the writing on the wall and exited gracefully, which obviously worked in her favor because it made it easy for Biden to tap her for VP.
Yup. I recall a lot of anti Kamala propaganda around marijuana and some law she passed where parents get fined money if their kids don’t go to school. And then she poofed.
She largely bowed out because she ran out of money, and unlike others in the campaign she didn't have pocket cash to fund her campaign herself nor rich backers clamoring for her to get in there.
No, the parents were arrested for children being truant. One had too many unexcused absences because the child had sickle-cell anemia and the single mom had to spend a lot of time dealing with the court process.
It wasn't fines it was threatening jail and arrest. She kept people in overcrowded jails against the orders of the Supreme Court, because the county needed slaves for fire-fighting because prison firefighters cannot become wildfire firefighters when they are out of prison. She also has never pushed back against abusive police.
Her past as a tough on crime Attorney General has been recently glossed over and she won't speak on it or admit she made mistakes.
That's what I had always remembered. She was one of the top candidates in 2020 up until that debate, then that one little exchange seemed to kill any traction she had. And it's weird, because I just watched that clip from that debate again the other day, and it didn't seem as bad as I remembered it. For some reason I remember her being deer in the headlights in her response, but it was more just not answering the charges, which is just what politicians do alot anyways.
Part of me is glad that she's gotten as much traction as she has after Biden dropped out, I would've never guessed she'd do as good as she's been doing, though another part of me is annoyed at the all the people who were perfectly willing to let the fascists take over just because they weren't excited enough to vote for an old white guy. There's not going to be any serious change in policy with Harris becoming the candidate, it's not like the Democratic party has changed overnight, it's still the same policies, just a new face. I guess it's cool if she wins, regardless of why people vote for her, but if the only reason Democrats win is just because they changed their mascot out, people are stupid.
Not much of a platform for sure but she's absolutely humiliating Trump which seems to be working to put down the facists, so hey I'll take it.
A candidate would be unwise to talk too much policy this late in the game. You gotta get in end zone before you can go home and fuck the prom queen.
Clinton's fatal flaw was picking about the worst campaign manager of all time, who did things like relying almost exclusively on software based calculations and stopped polling voters in early September.
This has Lewandowksi's fingerprints all over it.
It's late, and I misread this as:
Needless to say I was a bit confused.
The Orange man is not the issue, MSM, also, dude, please, Orange-American.
I abide.
Fucking thank you. I'm tired of people saying he's not stupid... This man is a fucking moron. Low cunning is not the same thing as intelligence.