this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
278 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4033 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 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
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 213 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

It's cold and he's been speaking 90 minutes.

This about sums it up. They're all still going to vote for him. They know he's a rambling senior citizen without scruples or even a plan, and they will support him regardless because they are as stupid as he is.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Yeah seriously. As much as I would love to think his fans were walking out on him, that is not the case.

Are there no ethical standards for journalism?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The article states pretty explicitly that this is not unusual. Twice. That line they quoted is a direct line from the article:

Trump is still speaking in Wildwood but much of the crowd has left. It's cold and he's been speaking 90 minutes. This whole area was full of people when Trump started," Anderson wrote.

And again:

"You can clearly see that people are leaving while [Trump is] rambling incoherently," Masterson wrote in another post. "This happens at a lot of rallies, cultists show up thinking he will say something new and profound. Then they get bored and walkout."

The whole premise of the article is stated right up front. Trump claimed an audience of 100,000, but the evidence shows that audience didn't hang around for him, undercutting the claim.

Feels like before you complain about journalism ethics you should at least commit to actually reading the articles so you know what you're complaining about.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

just wanted to add, according to the article the location can fit about 20000 people. 100000 lol - even the police lies less about crowd sizes at demonstrations, a factor of 5 is brazen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think the headline and first few sentences of the article are purposely misleading. They bank on their audiences only reading the headline or a portion of the article in order to make people jump to conclusions, instead of putting the conclusion or main point in the headline.

Be real; what is the first thing you think of when you read that headline? I think most people would assume people are walking out because he said or did something to make them walk out. Not because of the weather. It’s really news worthy that people left a rally because it was cold? C’mon now.

Yes- it’s on audiences to critically think about what they read, but journalism like this certainly doesn’t help. And they know this.

Obviously subjective, but to me that is unethical journalism.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Are there no ethical standards for journalism?

THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT THE ALGORITHM REQUIRES ENGAGEMENT

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Ethi-what for whatsthatnow?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

There's no profit in ethical standards.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Are there no ethical standards for journalism?

Are you just getting caught up? This ship sadly sailed a while ago. More importantly, Newsweek got you to click, so from their perspective the job is done.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

it's newsweek.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The point of the article is to challenge Trump's claims about the audience size during his speech, not to suggest he's losing support. Mostly just to catch him in more lies.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

Waste of energy. He's been lying about his popularity for quite a long time now.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Both the headline and the first sentence imply that people are walking out on Trump while he's speaking, as though that is a significant, coordinated event. The overestimated crowd figures are a secondary point in the article, probably because that also isn't news. Future biographers and historians will have "Trump exaggerated the size of [something]" as autocomplete.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Or, they are as hate-filled as he is. Or both...

[–] [email protected] 65 points 5 months ago (2 children)

1:25, calls OJ Simpson a great guy.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Doesn’t he know that his most loyal followers are racist? That’s a demographic awareness issue on his part.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Based on his Hannibal Lecter comments, I think he's more afraid of losing the mass murderer demographic.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That is absolutely a possibility, considering how that man’s brain works.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I imagine his brain works like paparazzi photos. Pop pop flash flash, blinding light, screaming, pop pop!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

That’s the Provigil working.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Or the cannibal vote…

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They don't care. They are lazy cowards who will give up everyone's rights for a false sense of safety. Trump can say whatever he wants because they don't take anything he says seriously. The more active among them are convinced that Trump is a "tool" to get what they want. Little do they know they are the ones being used.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

They don't care. They are lazy cowards who will give up everyone's rights for a false sense of safety.

Thats how it is for most of humanity, from Hitler, through Putin, to Trump, same playbook to appeal to the 80%

“Susan Sontag was asked what she had learned from the Holocaust, and she said that 10% of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10% is merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80% could be moved in either direction” —Kurt Vonnegut

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They hate women more than they hate black people

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

https://truthout.org/articles/yes-55-percent-of-white-women-voted-for-trump-no-im-not-surprised/

Yes, 55 Percent of White Women Voted for Trump. No, I’m Not Surprised.

It’s time to stop coddling white women when they bolster white supremacy, and to push for concrete acts of solidarity

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

OJ Simpson isn’t black. He’s a white black man. He’s the black guy the white people love. He’s not a N… if you catch my drift.

Apparently playing football and murdering your wife is the key to the racist heart.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

A black man that murdered a white woman is being praised by Trump and his supporters. I guess it shows that they'll praise anything he tells them to. Or it shows that they hate women more than they hate black people

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I think it’s the latter.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

White women are his majority

https://truthout.org/articles/yes-55-percent-of-white-women-voted-for-trump-no-im-not-surprised/

Whatever he's saying resonates with them

It’s time to stop coddling white women when they bolster white supremacy, and to push for concrete acts of solidarity

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

According to exit polls

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Well he murdered a white woman who was known to sleep with a black man, so racist box checked

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Jesus just listening to him ramble nonsense makes me want to shoot myself in the head. What a fucking retard

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I highly encourage you to listen to translations of Hitler's rallies, because they're the same kind of nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yup, nazis were fuckin idiots too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Hey excitingly new progressives who won't vote - here's one reason why you should. Because not voting is what gets you nazis.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

retard

I mean, you'd probably find a substantial number of people at that rally that still think it's ok to use this word in 2024.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

I would never call a retarded person a retard. Just regular people who are acting like retards

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He keeps railing against immigrants, yet also keeps marrying them.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

He doesn't mean white immigrants. He means the, uh, BAD ones.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How do people stand to listen to this moron? He rambles on and on about nonsense, pulling buzzwords and patronizing his followers.

His followers really are that stupid though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/12/13/dinner-with-trump-nrsc/

There was a contest to win a dinner with Trump.

Somehow, none of his supporters ever actually got to visit him at the White House.

No one despises Trump's people more than Donnie.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A video filmed during Donald Trump's New Jersey rally on Saturday shows "thousands" of people leaving while the former president was still talking.

At one point just a few minutes into Masterson's video, a rally attendee is seen telling him that the time is 6:48 p.m. meaning many people were leaving before Trump was even halfway through his speech.

Many of Trump's allies had bragged about the size of the crowd at the rally, suggesting it showed that he would undoubtedly defeat President Joe Biden in November's election.

"The American people are energized and ready to reelect President Trump in November," GOP Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X.

Aliya Schneider, a reporter with The Philadelphia Inquirer, posted videos showing some attendees leaving the rally while Trump was still speaking.

Alongside another video, Schneider wrote: "The back section of the crowd is noticeably smaller as people continue to leave while Trump is still speaking."


The original article contains 488 words, the summary contains 154 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

They were only paid for the first hour.

Oh, he doesn't actually pay anyone.