this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
148 points (75.9% liked)

politics

31359 readers
2533 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

So, we've got an old, racist guy who lied through most of his statements and refused to possibly say that he would accept the results of the election vs an old guy with a history of a speech impediment that showed signs of his speech impediment and regularly pointed out the lies spouted off by his convicted felon opponent. Why are the media companies banking Trump again?

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 57 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Biden's performance wasn't an impediment. It was him fumbling and stuttering over his words, forgetting his debate prep and saying nonsensical things. I absolutely do not want Trump to win, but Biden's debate performance in reality was poor. Many Democrats don't want to accept that. It is fine if they want to ignore facts. The truth is the Democrats would be far better off if Kamala or AOC or someone else was running for President, and they are risking way too much despite the facts.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not just a speech impediment, it's a speech impediment in a fucking 81 year old man who shouldn't be dealing with a stressful job in politics. Been around many octogenarians? He did great for someone his age.

If he were up against someone in their 30s or 40s, it would be terrible but, against an old racist nazi who can only seem to make complete statements when they are provably false? Well, I'd still prefer someone else but at least he has the balls to actually say the forbidden words of "you're lying" and he's the only choice that we're allowed to have as infuriating as that is.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Trump is almost the same age and he is a liar but he also was quick enough to immediately use Biden's blunders against him. Pretty much everything Biden said sounded scripted and then he still messed it up. Biden didn't "look" like the smarter candidate. There is enough misinformation out there that if people go searching they'll find sources that support Trump's lies. Trump won for the undecided tonight that watches the debate and uses it to make s decision.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Trump won for the undecided tonight that watches the debate and uses it to make s decision.

Anyone who was "undecided" tonight was going to support Trump anyway, either directly or with a "protest vote". Basically, to they were either lying to themselves or others and are quite alright with a nazi.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is factually not true, and there are several people that don't research every detail but try to make a decision based on intuition and performance... And even if they do research there are a lot of hook and bait misinformation networks that get routinely featured on Google News and other news aggregators. If someone thought Trump sounded like a stronger candidate tonight they may end up researching and seeing news supporting Trump's version of events.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Until you can back up your statements with verifiable evidence, you should probably just stop

[–] kava@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

10% of people who voted for Biden last time are switching to Trump according to a survey from a few months ago.

[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz -1 points 2 years ago

AOC? An ambitious woman who just barely will have squeezed past the minimum age requirement by the time of the election and half the country has decided is a communist? Don't get me wrong, I think she'd be a fantastic candidate, maybe even the best, but I sincerely doubt that she'd poll better than Biden, even considering his horrendous performance in yesterday's debate.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I watched it and this wasn't a stutter. This was a loss of his train of thought, switching topics unexpectedly, and creating needless openings for Trump to talk about things Biden didn't have a good defense for. To be clear his decision making faculties are obviously intact. But this performance was really really bad. Night and day from 4 years ago.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

It absolutely wasn't just a stutter. It was an 81 year old with a history of speech impediment - things like that can manifest differently in old age. Maybe it's from having grown up with a mother who was a nurse at an assisted living facility but, I really think that anyone who was shocked was setting expectations that are disconnected from the reality of how age impacts our communication abilities. If setting the bar at standards for people 10, 20, or 50 years younger, yeah, it was terrible. Relative to people of advanced age? He did well. When you're that old, 4 years in a high-stress position is a long time.

It's a bullshit choice as neither are in an age range where they should have power over long-term policy. It's also pretty horrific in terms of ethics. But, a soggy turnip would be better than any nazi, much less a nazi who is a compulsive liar intent on using the political system for revenge and installing himself as dictator.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly. I guess we are learning that most of our fellow citizens have a hard time with nuance, and all they can do is shit their pants instead of toughen up.

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

Some people just aren't living in denial

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 5 points 2 years ago

Did you see the audience metrics during his last presidency?