this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
404 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3964 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
 

Vice President Harris’s campaign posted most of Tuesday’s debate on the social platform X, referring to it as a new ad.

“Our newest ad just dropped,” the campaign captioned its Wednesday video post.

After Harris’s closing statement in the debate hosted by ABC News, the video is cut off to omit Trump’s closing statement, and a photo of the vice president pops up featuring a voiceover in which she says “I approve this message.” 

Harris was seen by many as having a good debate Tuesday night, a reversal of fortunes for Democrats compared to President Biden’s negatively-received performance in June. Sixty-three percent of registered voters in a CNN flash poll said the vice president performed better on the debate stage, while about 37 percent said the same about Trump.

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“Yeah but think of all those poor cats!!!” - the 37%

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The 37% sayin' the same about trump, are those that would follow him to hell - literally. He could kill a kitten in front of them, they wouldn't mind at all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Very smart move. Killing the cat before a dirty illegal immigrant cannot. Super smart.


because let's be honest they aren't worried about pets; it's that illegal immigrants are involved it.

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

Which, let's also be clear; they are not involved in any way.

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

Sure but that's why the message is being sold. The right wing is a post truth political movement. They are the alpha wave of the next global fascism movement.

Seeing the number of legal migrants who support Trump reminds me of the German Jews who supported the rise of Hitler.

It feels like a necessary step.

The genocide this movement is pushing for will not care about legal immigration status.

We're past the echo phase. We're deep into the, "I replaced Jew with Immigrant" phase.

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

He KILLED that Cat because there was 100000 ILLEGAL HAITIAN IMMIGRANTS coming in to Eat LITERALLY THAT exact Cat!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I really wish she got to go after Trump... His ending statement/question was the absolute perfect opportunity to stress the importance of voting for more than just the president!

"Why haven't you done all the things you say you want to yet?"

"People of the US: give me a Senate and House that will work with me and we can!"

It seemed like a mic drop for him but that's only because people don't understand all Republicans exist for is obstruction of democratic plans and to benefit the ownership class. Have a Republican lead House/Senate? You'll get nothing meaningful.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I fully agree, but a fully democratically owned house and Senate under Obama was pretty damn disappointing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

fully democratic by letter preceding their names only, they had a couple turncoats included in that

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

That's been the standard for a long time though, on both sides of the aisle.

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

If true, that would be exactly why you would need more than the exact bare minimum number of Democrats for what you want to accomplish, so that one or two can’t make a name for themselves by gumming up the works.

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

But it's the only reason we have the ACA. Which, while only ok, is so much better than not having the ACA.

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

Are you a person who doesn’t appreciate the significance of the ACA, or are you a person that doesn’t realize that the supermajority only lasted something like 11 weeks (during which they managed to barely get the ACA to happen)?

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

"No! You'll get something! I'm doing things! They're concepts of plans! We've got the greatest concepts!"

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“you & president trump were elected four years ago”

What?

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

And he never corrected himself. Kind of strange, but I guess time is at a premium.

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

I noticed that she also called him "vice-president Trump" one time and didn't catch it.

But as usual, it's not a "both sides are the same" thing, when she slips up once and he does it 50 times.

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

Clearly she wasn't referring to the office of Vice President, but was acknowledging that he was a president beset with numerous vices

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Useless noncontributory observation of the day. In the article, why is the "a" in "Wallace" randomly bolded...?

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

It's a trigger from a Deep State operative! It means they're going to start doing forced gender reassignment surgery on gay frogs in prison.

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

In prison? I thought that it was happening in the basement of a pizza restaurant that doesn't have a basement.

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

Oh yeah. I got my conspiracies confused.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

My guess would be the author originally typed "Wallece" and an editor corrected it but the bold slipped in?

I dunno, I'm just pulling that out of my ass.

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

It’s pronounced Wall-a-che

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Got a link? Cant view twitter without account.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

You're doing the lord's work.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cool, got a link that works for me?

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

Try opening it in a browser instead of the app, just tried it on my phone and it still opened right up. Aside from that look for the video of the debate, that's literally all it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Stop explaining something I know to be false.

I cannot view Twitter on mobile on any browser.

This is by design. They want to monetize every impression. Stop sharing stuff on Twitter.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Mate, it seems to be just you. Firefox on mobile,clearly not logged in.

Mate, it seems to be just you. Firefox on mobile,clearly not logged in.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Private mode on a mobile browser works for me, try that one

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Working just fine on Firefox without an account. How's that design working out? For all the time you've spent responding, you could have just looked up a video of the debate.