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
What, really?
I mean, holy shit, I'm not going to question divine providence from fucking Jupiter or whoever the fuck it is watching over elections, so, hey, you know, what convinces you convinces you.
I feel like even though biden didn't perform well, trump just said way too many obvious lies. Like saying the nazi rally in charlottesville was just a lie made up by biden?? Despite there being photos of it???
It's basically just depends if you stayed tuned. I mean I have perfect sympathy for someone who watched the first 15 or 20 minutes and then turn it off because you know damn. However the longer it went the worst Trump got and Biden kind of leveled out though never got impressive by any means.
I mean, I stayed until the end but my drinking skyrocketed. I honestly don’t remember the end. It was rough. Being a little informed I knew good and well that Trump was absolutely dodging the questions and laying down outright lies and propaganda, but every time I looked at Biden… holy fuck.
My exact scenario and feelings.
Y'all need to figure out how to regulate your emotions better.
Is everyone posting in this thread an alcoholic or something?
I'm starting to think the takeaway from this entire post is how irrational and emotional Americans are, regardless of who they support.
This is common knowledge to the extent the old Avalon Hill military strategy board games from 50 years ago had rules to emphasize the emotional instability of american troops.
I guess I'm a cynic - I didn't expect anyone not already convinced that Trump was a liar to be convinced by his usual performance. But I guess most people don't spend their time chewing their fingers down to the bone religiously watching political developments like some of us do.
Probably healthier for them.
I opened lemmy a few days ago to check the news after taking a break for a few days.
I hadn't even read anything yet and I felt my adrenaline start.
It's also early. We still have 5 months and way more debates.
I don't think my liver can take it.
Or the lovely didn’t have sex with a porn star.
He was saying that the Dems saying that he said there were fine people in the KKK or that the people coming out of the woods carrying torches swastikas were fine people was a lie..
It was a nazi rally organized by nazis where they literally marched down the street in columns at night with flaming torches shouting "blood and soil" and "the jews will not replace us," both Nazi slogans. One of the nazis rammed his car into a crowd a anti racist protests at high speed, killling 1 and injuring dozens.
This is the rally he replied to with "there are fine people on both sides." He then hedged and said he didn't support nazis, seconds after supporting nazis.
It's almost like the man could have flat out condemned nazis with no intentional ambiguity, but nah.
Unfortunately the title makes it sound like they're talking about undecided voters in general, when the story is about a specific group of people that were interviewed.
Reading that article felt like I had fallen for a bait and switch.
(edit: "Clickbait and switch"? Is that a thing?)
Yeah my mom bought into the narrative. I was telling her what a disaster the debate was and of course she doesn't want to accept that.
So she latched onto headlines like this one.
Any port in a storm
If you were listening for actual policy Biden crushed trump.
I see a lot of up votes so there's gotta be people who agree, but this sentient is rare in the comments here.
For the record, I agree.
At least Biden attempted to directly answer questions. Trump repeatedly evaded them to talk about whatever he wanted during his allotted time.
Biden struggled to recall accurate information.
Trump effortlessly ranted and lied.
Both were embarrassing. One was worse.
Oh, no doubt. I'm just not used to 'swing voters' agreeing with me on the subject.
That’s true. It’s crazy to consider. They’ve both served one term. There is a proven track record of successes and failures. Anyone undecided must not have been paying attention.
Trump has never proven if he can recall accurate information either though.
He doesn’t need to do that for his own camp. He just needs to sound like he’s winning an argument.
The undecided voters may have been waiting for clear substantiation of goals and accomplishments. Biden did a terrible job explaining his own, but Trump was clearly evasive with the majority of his responses.
It's newsweek so probably not, unfortunately. They reference a single Unilever focus group of Hispanic/Latino undecideds. Not sure that's enough to justify this title at all.
I mean, I'd count ANYONE being convinced by the other night's performance as a surprise at this point. Was not a high moment for democracy.
It's a single focus group of specifically undecided Latino voters. Only more standardised and statistically significant polling will give a better estimation. Could there be an unexpected, seemingly paradoxical effect? Maybe, shit is complicated, yo. Politics are a chaotic system at times. I personally doubt it, but, hey, we will see.
But this article in particular? To be blunt: It is cope.
This is exactly how you do experiments in social sciences. You need one off events like a debate or Supreme Court decision. Gathering people in a room like this ensures they all watch the debate and don't change the channel or something.
"Cope" is listening to talking heads and ignoring actual experiments like this one. Donald Trump loses among Latinos when people listen to him. That's what this tells me.
True, thank you for pointing that point out, because this actually does show an important angle of messaging ahead. What makes the article itself cope in my opinion, is its misleading headline and overall presentation. It's tabloid-level of presenting the message, your interpretation is actually a lot better.
I mean, this is pretty standard for Biden. He has had that stutter and aphasia for decades.
And yes, if your goal is a Reaction video or to call him weak and push an accelerationist agenda, that is horrible.
Anyone else? "Okay, he said th-th-thousands when he meant millions. It happens and it shouldn't but people should also not be taking hard statistics from political speeches. Wait, they made fourteen fucking million jobs??!?"
There is no argument that Biden did not accomplish what he needed to on Wednesday. He and the Democratic Party fucked up. But trump also did not accomplish what he needed to do and I think we mostly came out net neutral. Is net neutral at all acceptable at this point? No. But Biden has shown, time and time again, that he is really good at winning people over over time.
Hope you're right. I'm all-in for a Biden victory, of course, because I'm not a lunatic or a fascist, but God, Biden ain't good for my nerves, that much is for sure.