News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
tl;dr: Kamala's a terrible politician, and out of touch with reality.
That does not ring true as the reason why she lost the election.
Trump is absolutely an even worse politician and way more out of touch with reality. But it didn't matter because so are the people that vote for him.
I think it's more that she is out of touch with the voters, and they absolutely were on Gaza. Not because they didn't know, but because Democrats didn't want to change their policy on Israel.
The above sounds more like your personal opinion than a result of reading the article.
Oh, so you don't like my summary of the article you didn't read? Maybe you should go read the article then, then you can come back here and we can have a proper argument about what you expected the TL;DR should be.
I don't know why you think you don't have time to read the article, you seem to have an awful lot of time to split hairs about "out of touch with voters" vs "out of touch with reality" as if these are vastly different things in your attempt to start an argument while agreeing with literally everything I was trying to suggest with that term. I have clearly made the mistake of stepping into your well-laid trap, you got me, fair and square, I concede to your superior intellectual position and withdraw my own, whatever you think that may be.
I have to say though, you sound very much like you have a little bit of personal opinion going on here too. I'm not terribly interested in what that is, so I'll be leaving now.
I actually read quite a bit of the article before responding.
For instance her idea that having a gay running mate might be a problem, was in my opinion naive.
It's like she thinks democratic voters will only vote for the status quo, when they are screaming for change.
But that so typical for many people, they are so obsessed with appearances, that they end up always seeming superficial and shallow and without substance.
Stupid when there was no way she could beat Trump on that aspect.
Trump is a brilliant politicaian. I hate the ground the man walks on, but don't discount his political skills. He has stronger political instincts than almost every politician alive in America today. He can be evil while also being a great politician. You see his politics and conclude he doesn't know what he's doing. But you are simply not his target audience.
I disagree, he is a terrible politician but an excellent demagogue.
People seem to confuse the idea of getting people to vote for you as the only requirement for being a good politician, but that is definitely not true.
To be a good politician, you need to also be able to improve conditions in the country,and create acceptance of the policies, and as president to be able to cooperate with congress for the good of the country, and to not be corrupt is pretty high up there in requirements too.
I have no idea how anyone can call Trump a good politician???
You're confusing being a good politician with being a good leader or representative. Being a politician is all about winning elections. The man can't lead the country worth a shit, but he can get elected.
No what you are describing isn't even really a politician, but just a demagogue.
A demagogue makes promises to win an election, a politician work to deliver on the promises, and help make things better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician
Winning an election is only a means to become a politician, not the end.
Exactly the parts I described as determining whether a politician is good or bad.
A more formal definition:
So contrary to what you claim, not at all about campaigning or election by any definition, but the actual work that is done AFTER an election.
In fairness, all his opponents were centrists who no one liked. Biden barely beat him and that was only after promising a bunch of things that he never intended to do.
I doubt they read the article, but I read a decent bit and that's actually a fair summary of what the author wrote. I didn't see any real support for their opinion, mostly just repeated and slightly differing versions of derision. I'm not super fond of Harris so I was curious what they'd lay out but it doesn't appear all that substantial especially for a thesis project like that.
Not the actual words in book, but it's a lot easier to fill 100 pages with her word salad than it is with "it was Russia, Bernie, sexism, Comey"