296
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 220 points 1 month ago

Donald Trump might have just delivered a fatal blow to his reelection campaign

Seems like wishful thinking. Trump says a hundred reprehensible things that should "deliver a fatal blow to his relection campaign" every day before breakfast. It's not like massive numbers of his base quit supporting him over "fine people on both sides" or "stand back and stand by" or "you won't have to vote any more."

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 89 points 1 month ago

I'm pretty sure the only thing that would get his base to quit him is if he pulled off a facemask to show he was Hilary Clinton AND Barack Obama in a fat suit.

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

Unironically, if he would actually show human emotions and ask for forgiveness in front of the world for his horrible behaviour all his life, tears streaming down his face, they would immediately turn against him.

[-] odelik@lemmy.today 15 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

If “grab ‘em by the pussy” and the constant word salad doesn’t tank him, I’m pretty sure nothing he’d say would.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 15 points 1 month ago

Yeah I think the whole "grab 'em by the pussy" farce was the first proof that Trump can literally get away with anything. Remember when he claimed he could shoot someone on Manhattan square and not lose any voters? I don't think he was lying, for once.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

They'll explain it away (poorly) and then ignore it. If anyone brings it up they'll just say "Fake news" and repeat the terrible explanation for it

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

I agree, If the fact that he was on Epstein's Island dozens of times and multiple court cases that proved he's a rapist didn't doom him, this won't either.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I remember hearing this headline ad nauseam during the last 2 elections and every single one of his many "fatal blows" barely moved the needle. His base does not give a single shit what he does. They'll either embrace it, deny it, or ignore it, but it will never affect their opinion of him.

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

I started to type out a few more and I just got exhausted listing all of them mentally.

[-] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

At this point he could spend an entire debate screaming racial slurs and defecating on the podium and not lose any voters.

[-] Pronell@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago

Since nobody else posted the context, regarding Doug Emhoff:

'"He's a crappy Jew," said host Sid Rosenberg. "He's a horrible Jew."

And Trump agreed.'

I think this may lose him a few supporters, but still, it's Trump.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 50 points 1 month ago

The appropriate response to that would be to stand up and leave. An acceptable response would be to correct this awful comment directly, akin to how McCain corrected that lady in the town hall thing about Obama.

This weirdo just rolled with it.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

It's hard to believe where we are now. It seems like not to long ago, we had Obama vs McCain, who were both respectable candidates. It wasn't until McCain chose Palin as his running mate that shit got weird. And the danger was amplified by McCain being old.

I want to go back to politics where "both sides" were just corporate shills and everyone knew life was going to be OK, but corps were going to slowly fuck us.

Now it seems like life and death.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 11 points 1 month ago

Do we know the actual full context?

I get so mad when I believe this stuff only to find out later that the context was more like: "he's a terrible Jew" (as in, it's fine that he's Jewish, he's just a bad Jew in comparison to other Jews.) it's important because it's not hating the fact that he's Jewish, they're saying he's lesser than "good" Jewish people just like how we say Republicans are terrible Christians. We aren't disparaging Christians (sure, some are) we're saying that compared to what a Christian should be like, they are horrible.

I hate that I even have to attempt to defend this, but our media is fucking horrible left, right, center. All corpo media is worthless cash grab click bait garbage so my first instinct is to assume they're lying by omission for clicks and outrage...

[-] blarth@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 month ago

He’ll just say he didn’t hear exactly what was said.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago

Trump isn't trying to win Jewish votes here. He's telegraphing to his anti-Semitic base that Jews are not loyal -- a classic anti-Semitic trope. It's one of the many ways that Trump foments anti-Semitism.

[-] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"Well sure, they say I'm a friend of the jewish community, but as soon as I start blaming them for little things like "the economic and social decay of the entire world" suddenly they stop backing me. Damn unreliable jews!"

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Remember, "just grab them by the pussy!"

This man's career isn't going to be dead until a fucking stake is driven through it's heart. He's been caught saying vile things. He's been caught doing vile things. He's been convicted of felonies.

And his base still votes for him. Don't let off the gas pedal until we've made sure he loses the election and the next insurrection he has planned.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

His base votes for him because he says horrible things. They are all bigoted.

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

That sure is an optimized URL.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago

A memorable article URL to share with any undecided Jewish people you might know...

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

Narrator: Trump lost zero supporters.

shocked_pickachu.exe

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

His base will play it off as a joke and anyone else who gives a shit wouldn't vote for him anyways.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

His base will play it off as a joke

That’s generous. A lot of them will be happy about it

[-] KamikazeRusher@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

They’ll instead argue that Trump didn’t say that (which is true) and ignore the fact that he agreed to it, possibly even claiming that his agreement wasn’t towards race but instead just being a “horrible” person.

[-] n1ck_n4m3@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It doesn't matter what Trump says or does at this point, him getting the votes isn't the plan.

Johnson will refuse to certify the results of the election that will put Democrats in the House, claiming some kind of bullshit irregularities with no proof, leaving the House controlled by the Republicans. They’ll then claim irregularities in the presidential election and force a contingent election where they have a 100% chance of electing Trump no matter what the public votes.

More people need to be made aware that this is 100% legal for them to do, and more people need to be aware that it is almost certainly what they will try. The only thing that can possibly stop it is significant awareness by the mass population of Americans and significant publicity (similar to how mass awareness of Project 2025 turned it into a poison pill).

EDIT: Oh look, they’ve already started making it super-legal in battleground states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/georgia-local-election-boards-allowed-withhold-vote-certification

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

The gap here as far as I can read is that the house doesn't certify their own results and they members elect the speaker before they get sworn in.

So if the new Congress is majority Democrat, Mike Johnson can't do anything about that, as the speaker is going to be selected by Democrats.

Now the whole behavior in the event of an electoral tie is stupid, and that would probably be a trump victory, since each state has equal voice at that point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 month ago

Wait hold on a second.

For the record, I'm no trumpist. Trump can fuck off and die.

But, I've listened to the audio clip and it's not Trump who says these things. The the radio host. Trump just goes "uh huh... uh huh... uh huh" while the host talks.

Can that even be pinned on Trump? Shouldn't the radio host be under fire?

And besides, this is the same bullshit from zionist jews calling jews that don't support Israel in their conflicts as "self-hating jews". This isn't even new from these kinds of people.

I just don't understand the uproar.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

He's in the midst of an antisemitic conversation and just rolls with it. One would hope for better or of any random person, but especially if he's such a bold person, then more than others you should expect him to loudly assert objections. If his whole brand is being loud, him being quiet and deferential now is pretty damning.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Oh of course! I agree with you there. But it's just the way the media is spinning it that doesn't reflect what really happens. And that makes you wonder what other things they wrote about where they made it sound worse that it actually is. For any candidate or any other news really.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The source is cited as heavily left leaning (albeit highly credible), and only cites a bunch of other literal democrats and heavily left leaning sources.

Of course they're going to be upset.

Everyone should be upset of course, it's unacceptable rhetoric from Trump, and he's a raving jerk like he's always been, even before 2016.

But this is like saying water is wet, or like being surprised when a bunch of Republican sources are outraged at a Biden gaffe. The assertion that it's a "fatal blow" would carry a lot more weight if they cited even somewhat less Democrat leaning sources.

[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

He has ordained himself as arbiter of what now? So weird.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 1 month ago

“If the guy who wants you to think Nazis are fine people thinks I'm a c----- jew," replied X user @LOLGOP, "stitch it on my c----- kippah."

?

… cuntyy?

I got nothin dude

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago
[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 8 points 1 month ago

My god, you’re right

I remember exactly when was the last time I got excitable about someone saying “crap”; I was in the 4th grade.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Has the corporate web become that milquetoast that people need to censor the word "crap"?

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

This dude called dead service members suckers, advocated for grabbing women by the pussy, paid off a porn star hush money, made way too many racist remarks to keep track of.

This "uproar" won't affect him in any way.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 5 points 1 month ago

The bot is an annoyance, especially since mbfc is actually biased.

[-] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago
[-] Hegar@fedia.io 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's not sufficient.

A biased fact checking bot should not be allowed to operate in a public forum, giving weight to it's opinions as though it were a neutral source of truth.

If you want its services, you can go to their website and use it. It shouldn't be here.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think you've inadvertently demonstrated the problem with calling out media "bias".

as though it were a neutral source of truth.

I would be interested to lean what, if anything, you'd say meets this description.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Only my uncle's drunken retelling of events he half heard on Newsmax are true!!1!!11!!!ONE!

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

Report it to the mods, if they consider it is providing "low-effort comments" (Rule 5) then they can block the bot from the community. Else you can block on your own user level.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago

i vote to keep the bot, for no other reason than that dude's butthurt about it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 3 points 1 month ago

Good news! You can start your own instance! With black jack and hookers!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is of course dispicable. Unfortunately, people should already know this about Dementia Don, so I don't expect this to sway anyone. Better to emphasize things his supporters care more about, like that he's old, smelly, weird, and afraid to debate a black woman.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I mean, this guy has been a bigot his whole life. His entire political career was launched on the back of a racist tirade against Obama. And then again, against Mexicans. Not sure there’s anything surprising about this.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
296 points (94.0% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3730 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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