this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
431 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3028 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
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 168 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

During the debate, he doubled down on his full page ad calling for the execution of the central park five. Despite everything since then that's come out strongly showing they were innocent

[–] [email protected] 77 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ironic coming from a man convicted of sexual assault

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Sing it all together now!
P! R! O! J! E! C! T! I! O! N!

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I've never a actually read this. This is horrendous and by itself - like so, so many things - should have effectively made him unelligible for office.

Even if he'd been right about them.

This also could easily have been written today, and shows an amazing example of what's wrong with a huge number of people.

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

Oh I was flabbergasted when I read it too. It's also funny because it shows his speaking style hasn't changed that much in 40 years.

Shows Harris did her damn research though, and fully expected to be on the attack for the race angle. I never even heard about this ad before the debate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a very well known thing and has come up in tons of discussions about Trump in the last decade, especially his 2016 presidential run. I just personally had never read the text before.

Doesn't mean everyone is aware, but wouldn't be THAT impressed by Kamala being aware of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I guess that's true. Still glad it got publicly outed in front of 67 million people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

it shows his speaking style hasn’t changed that much in 40 years.

Does it? My first thought was "who wrote this? Trump definitely doesn't know some of those words" lol

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

Punctuation still leaves a lot to be desired though

[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 months ago

It wasn’t clear if Trump immediately understood why Salaam was there, but he grinned and pointed at him, quipping: “That’s good, you’re on my side!”

Salaam, obviously taken aback, laughed along with some of the reporters around him.

“No, no, I’m not on your side!” Salaam shot back.

This senile old fuck has no business being in office again, nor did he the first time.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago

Excellent choice. He is the leader of mobs and needs to be called out.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't think this was much of a confrontation. He couldn't hear. The guy behind the camera said "I'm Yusef Salaam" and Trump heard "I'm side" and thought he said "I'm on your side". There were so many people trying to get his attention.

It's too bad that the poor man can't get an apology. Could you imagine if Trump actually apologized? It would break everybody's brains.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

I think he heard, he was just ignoring it. Snowballs chance in hell he would apologize, he wouldnt even acknowledge that they were innocent

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

If he apologized to a person for having been racist he would lose voters.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (3 children)

"...for a crime they were later they later exonerated of."

Is The Independent a reputable news source? On the flip side, it's clear this wasn't written by AI!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that’s acceptable Brit speak tbh.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Acceptable American speak, too.

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

You're under the impression LLMs don't produce incorrect grammar?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They may be right this time, but still not reputable. I mean, come on, they ended that sentence with a preposition!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

Not ending a sentence with a preposition is a stupid and meaningless rule. Everyone does it. Language has moved on. Get over it.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago

It wasn’t clear if Trump immediately understood why Salaam was there, but he grinned and pointed at him, quipping: “That’s good, you’re on my side!”

That ain’t no fucking quip, yo. Goddamn.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

this is a great article, and somewhat unrelated, do all publications not have built-in grammar checks for their articles?

"...crime they were later they later exonerated..."

i keep seeing worse and worse typos, although it's difficult to call them typos at this point, how does such a clusterfuck happen these days?

[–] odigo2020 34 points 2 months ago (4 children)

There used to be copy editors. Copy editors cost money. Now, there are no copy editors.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That and research/investigative journalism were the first things to get the axe after the major corporations bought most of the media outlets.

It's just another money extraction device now

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

AI training on itself after training on the collective random grammar mistakes of humans for all of time.

Yeah, it’ll make the CEOs richer alright.

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

even my phone keyboard would have corrected this

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Execs:

we can save so much money if we just let “AI” proofread things!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Generous to assume they replaced the proof guy with ai instead of just firing everyone and letting ai write everything.

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

You've noticed the bane of my existence. The death of news and journalism has meant an end to good copy editing.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He called for the debate room to be executed?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's funny how different his social media team sounds compared to him. Trump is so inarticulate / brutish that the "I am verily disappointed in these trying times." seems like a comedy skit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Like the opposite of the Key and Peele skits with Obama's translator.