It’s a real lack of understanding if they assume that people are only voting for her because she is black. It’s going to be a really really weak strategy
I still remember when he won in 2008, feeling happy that he was able to win, not because he was black but despite it. He didn’t campaign on it at all. In hindsight, he campaigned on a vague notion of change, which I’m sure many thought it meant more than it really did.
And then Hilary actually did campaign about voting her in because she’s a woman and it’s her turn. While Trump took on the vague “drain the swamp” message that many likely believed he meant something different by (when in hindsight, it was either an outright lie or he specifically meant the “swamp” of barriers between him and making money from whatever half-baked scam he was currently chasing).
That said, let them think that. They’ll just waste their time making themselves look worse for focusing so much attention on something that isn’t really relevant to anything. I’m not even sure who the intended target audience of that accusation is. He might just end up making her more palatable for racists who are getting tired of him.
This is their best shot. Trump ran as a reform candidate, but he never delivered. At best (?) he built a fence that didn’t do anything. So he’s desperate to avoid policy discussions.
It’s a dog whistle to the racists who think the only thing worse than not being white is being mixed race. But they can’t just say that out loud, so they play dumb and go “how can she be both?”
Political parties should be abolished. Imagine how much more attention you would have yo pay if you had to understand who to vote for. Plus then it would allow people like your local mail carrier to run for things like school committee.
case in point is the mail why wouldn’t a mail carrier be votable to congress or senate or president or any government position
not only would the expertise come in to play but people would finally see something like participating in government a reality like running for offices for themselves or just voting
would break the traditional rule of the US and shatter the elites’ power
Good question. I said should, not could… it would take a constitutional change, which is currently impossible. I used to think a lot about this, and there just is no law that wouldn’t get stricken down if passed.
Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it
Pfft. The two are not the same. You could be perfectly illiterate and still find out what the supposed values of the politicians were by simply listening to them, or just talking to others about policy and politicians ties to them, like we used to.
They aren’t? If yes how would that change?
The Hatch Act applies to all career federal civil servants and prevents anyone under that designation from running from office in any partisan race. Meaning if your local government doesn’t allow political affiliations to be listed, then you can run for dog catcher or school committee or whatever. Non-partisan local elections used to be the norm, now they are exceptionally rare. Forcing every election to be non-partisan opens up a bunch of likely trustworthy people to be able participate in politics through running for offices.
Good question. I said should, not could… it would take a constitutional change, […]
I mean: if you had the power, how would you ban parties? At what point do political organizations become parties? How about individual representatives working together?
Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it
Pfft. The two are not the same. You could be perfectly illiterate and still find out what the supposed values of the politicians were by simply listening to them, or just talking to others about policy and politicians ties to them, like we used to.
Yes literacy is not the deciding factor, but it was always a pretense to keep certain people from voting.
Imagine how much more attention you would have yo pay if you had to understand who to vote for.
How much time should a person spend following politics to get enough of an understanding? What about poor people working long hours with little free time?
Guess I should have gone with the landowning requirement instead.
The Hatch Act applies to all career federal civil servants and prevents anyone under that designation from running from office in any partisan race. Meaning if your local government doesn’t allow political affiliations to be listed, then you
Sound like a problem with the Hatch Act, not with political parties. Over here civil servant can run in political races as long they separate their work and political live, they are not allowed to wear uniforms at political events for example.
I made a reddit post pointing out an “advocacy group’s” fraudulent actions and the director of said group sent me multiple death threats and fake legal letters lol
I can just imagine the spittle flying from the full lipped, meaty jowled, flushed faces of his most rabid white boy supporters as they scream in their shrill voices that a woman has no place questioning their president.
The article seems to insinuate that he had just as large of a crowd in Atlanta but it was much smaller. They also state that his campaign rallies have been as big as ever but they too have been smaller.
Classic NY Times. Steering into conservatism in the name of presenting both sides. Man. Sometimes there isn’t two sides to a story, and that’s been the case since 2012 with Donald Trump. This fucko has been spouting insane shit for over a decade and everyone just gives him a platform because when a rich guy says something, no matter how insane, that’s news worthy. We never woulda had a Trump presidency if the media hadn’t been like “Donald Trump keeps saying Barack Obama isn’t American. What’s that about?” And then treated him serious instead of dismissing it as what it was, the lunatic ramblings of a racist
This broader issue has been bad for a while. I honestly wonder if our climate change situation would be better today if the media hadn’t given equal time to scientists who didn’t think there was human-influenced climate change, even though they were an infinitesimally small fraction of climate scientists. I can understand why some people thought it was a debate among scientists long after it was broadly accepted.
Likewise, treating every wholly fabricated lie that Trump spouts out like it deserves consideration gives him underserved legitimacy.
Who controls the media? That’s the question to ask. Do they have an incentive to manufacture outrage? Do they have reason to favor one outcome over another? Even if what they’re presenting you is factually accurate, sometimes even deciding to give something coverage at all changes what the story is. Donald Trump coulda been a rich guy with weird thoughts with only the people already following him on twitter seeing his bullshit, or better yet, he coulda been thrown off twitter, but the news MADE him into a public figure by treating him as one. And then twitter didn’t kick him off the platform BECAUSE he was a public figure.
I think it’s important not to underestimate the enemy by convincing ourselves Cheetolini doesn’t have support.
According to multiple reporters and the venue itself, both rallies had “at-capacity attendance,” meaning there were more people wanting to attend then were allowed into the venue. Apparently there were reserved areas at Trump’s rally that didn’t fill, but it’s unclear why they were reserved and why they weren’t filled.
That being said, reports note people actually stayed for Harris’s rally, whereas people began leaving halfway through Trump’s 90+ minute rambling speech.
I’d also like to see the media report on how many people at his rallies travel to every rally. If the same people are at every event, then isn’t it much less of a “crowd” and much more of a traveling circus?
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.