politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
The first time the moderators countered his obvious dog-whistle lies I was absolutely blown away. You could have knocked me over with a feather. Then I started laughing and didn't stop.
The correction was really well done and completely natural by both moderators, I almost didn't register what happened. Love to see it.
Donald's whimpering rebuttal of "but but I saw it on TV" objectively did the most damage to his image of everything I have seen to date.
What was it? “The people on TV said it!”
He sounded exactly like my grandmother with dementia the day I walked into her room to her freaking out about the postman stealing her cheerios.
This. He sounded like a 5yo.
That's insulting to 5-year-olds. Many of them can actually complete sentences before going on to the next thought.
Especially from the guy who made the phrase “Fake news” famous.
He’s definitely sundowning.
It still blows me away that he managed to take over the term “fake news”.
It was introduced as a way to explain how social media was leading gullible people into MAGA, but he turned it into a term for persecution of MAGA by conventional media.
It was actually an incredible move. I can’t think of anything he’s spun that well since 2016.
I'm pretty sure Hitler or Mussolini popularized the term (Hitlers translation was closer to "lying press) originally to discredit journalists, socialists, scientists... Etc. Trump has been reported to have Mein Kampf on his bedside table, but I need to actually read it myself to confirm how much of his playbook comes from it. He for sure targets vulnerable, innocent groups (immigrants, women, LGBTQ, etc.). He eroded public infrastructure, attempting to privatize it where he could.
Not Mein Kampf, it was a book of translated Hitler speeches.
My favorite moment from the whole thing was when Harris offhandedly mentioned that his rallies were bad, and he spent a full minute of his rebuttal time insisting that his rallies were awesome, then started arguing with the moderators when they fact checked him. You could see that that, above everything else that went on, rankled him. It really highlighted the narcissism.
The highlight for me for the whole debate was not Trump's pet-eating outburst but the perfect setup and execution Harris did to bait him into that unhinged rant instead of talking about immigration.
She "invites" people to go to Trump rallies. She follows up the point about people leaving rallies early with a note along the lines of: you're about to watch Trump not talk about you. Sure enough, he fell into the trap, and Trump talked about what he cared about most at that moment.
It took him like 2 minutes to do everything she said, right in front of him, that he would
Go back and watch Trump. His eyeballs pop when she says attendees are leaving out of exhaustion and boredom.
Buttons pushed.
I'd say it is when he suggested migrants were eating people's pets 😅
That was all part of the same response and fact check sequence.
The thing is, he looked visibly confused. As if he truly believes that the things he sees on TV are absolute truth.
I was watching it through Dylan Burns stream on it and he said trump sounded like an angry five year old.
Edit: said not sayed, fucken Redneck accent fucken up my spelling.
Yeah this is one of those typos that you can hear ^^
You misspelled refuttal. Orange you embarrassed?
Too bad they let him continue to lie about the thing they just fact checked, let him talk beyond his allotted time, reapond when it wasn't his turn, and shut down Harris the one time she tried to respond out of turn.
The moderators crossed an extremely low bar on fact checking last night, but did everything else the same way they always have.
All his talking didn't help him at all. I don't think the Harris side cared about him self-destroying his image and giving lots for the talk shows later to make fun of.
It gives him a platform. End of story. Every single minute he talks it allows for normalization.
This works for some things, but it's like the parable of the boiled toad: you need to push on the edges of truth, not come out guns blazing with "post-birth abortions", "Immigrants eating family pets", and "Democrats wanted Roe v Wade overturned also"
It's too late for that. We deal with him or he gets back in the White House.
But to who? His cult? They are lost, stop trying to save them. B
It's complicated, since the Harris campaign wanted him to have more opportunities to ramble, interrupt and get mad. They were very much counting on him being himself and comparing that to someone who can speak in coherent sentences without getting mad.
A well executed Batman Gambit in real life.
My thoughts as well. Trump did himself no favours with undecideds and independents with his inane rambling rants. For the most part, Harris just seemed content to use her time to press him and let him make a fool out of himself, with only a couple of instances popping up when she seemed to want to interject but couldn't.
He shut her down twice. The one time was really over the line. But I loved the moderator saying there is no place in the USA that executing babies is legal. Wtf, 9 month abortions? Lol
My mom fully believes this shit for some reason. She believes mothers carry to 9 months and just abort out of inconvenience, and that doctors don't work to keep the fetus alive out of the womb if possible. She shares pictures with descriptions of the procedures with zero sources beyond Christian crisis pregnancy centers. Or just Christians.
And she wonders why I started exhibiting signs of PTSD before I was even six.
I support it. They have a job to let viewers know that the radical information is not true, and they should not take it as valid information to get worked up over.
It's the difference between Trump sounding like a maniac vs exposing a controversy. They don't need to stop him from sounding like a maniac. They just need to clarify that he is, in fact, a maniac.
In this case his extra time actually hurt him.
That really showed what a shitbag outfit CNN has become under it’s new conservative ownership group. They are a wolf in sheep’s clothing now.
“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” he said. Then he suggested a model: “Fox News, in my opinion, has followed an interesting trajectory of trying to have ‘news’ news, I mean some actual journalism, embedded in a program schedule of all opinions.”
Malone’s comments didn’t resonate much beyond a couple of places: At Fox News, which responded with glee, and inside CNN, where they sounded alarm bells.
—New board member and billionaire John Malone, a legend in the cable TV business and one who has deep and longstanding ties with David Zaslav
Emphasis added
I would like to see any organization actually have journalists or actually do journalism. But my definition of journalism is different from this sociopath's, like I take telling the truth as an assumption.
Al Jazeera is pretty good with international news. Be skeptical of their middle east news though.
Also Democracy Now. Amy Goodman is still out there trying to break stories.
There are only a handful of journalists left. Two that come to mind are Pam and Russ Martens of WSOP (Wall Street On Parade) who have been speaking truth to power for decades but remain obfuscated like other journalists with integrity.
Obviously these are financial journalists and we need many like them and their courage in the political and world news spheres.
They are out there, but they are the very few.
Yeah the baby executioner bit was gold.
THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS
Link?