Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped “wars with France,” after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to “close the deal.”

…

Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.

Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.

  • aalvare2@lemmy.world
    1·
    8 days ago

    Bro how desperate are you? The links all say the same thing. I could find you hundreds more that ALSO say the same thing. This was a HUGE news story a while back, this isn’t even controversial. Republicans openly admitted that the bill went farther than the one they previously wrote and only killed it because Trump told them to. Are you gonna keep whining the more links I show you that prove me right?

    My guy…can you quote anything that specifically suggests democrats went to the right of Rebuplicans.

    Here, I’ll help you: if you can link me anything that says that republicans killed the bill ‘because it goes too far to crack down on the border’, then that’d be democrats moving to the right of Republicans. Simply quoting that Republicans shut it down isn’t enough - they shut it down because Trump told them to, because he wanted to campaign on immigration. You’re quoting all this extra stuff about Democrats moving right, but you haven’t quoted a single thing to suggest they’re moving further right than Republicans. That was and still is the part I called BS on. Do you think you can manage that? Or are you gonna keep wasting your own time?

    Timestamp me the part where she says “yes”. That’s not what she said and you know it. You’re just lying now.

    First off…technically, she does say “yes”, 17 seconds in. XD I’m starting to think you didn’t even watch the video.

    Secondly, it’s an open-ended question. “Let me ask you this question, very broadly speaking here. Do you believe that transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care in this country?” Then, mid-answer, she’s asked “They’re trying to define you on this. I’m asking you to define yourself, though. Broadly speaking, what is your value? Do you believe they should have that access?” She gave an open-ended answer about gender affirming care, to an open-ended question about gender-affirming care, asserting that legislators shouldn’t be overruling doctors on gender-affirming care. I bet if she’d just answered the question with “yes” but no broad explanation, you’d complain that “she doesn’t have any beliefs, she’s just saying yes without thinking so trans people will elect her”.

    Follow-up for you: tell me how her answer implies “no”. Oh, but wait, you’re a stickler for the exact words used, so I’ll speak in your language: Timestamp me the part where she says “no”. Because that’s not what she said, and I’d like to say “you know that” but you probably didn’t watch the video.

    That’s the ONLY WAY TO CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. If you just pay it lipservice and then do all the bad things that are making the world boil, guess what! You don’t actually care about climate change.

    Awfully convenient of you to cookie-cut straight through my statement mid-sentence to make it look like I don’t care about climate change, and to ignore the second part of that sentence. Y’know, the part you chose not to answer to because it was too hard.

    Yeah buddy the problem is structural. Selling out your values to chase after the mystical ‘undecided middle’ doesn’t work. Democrats need to be a party of values that they live up to. If you don’t see the difference between those things then I can’t help you.

    The trump voters and the undecideds are the ones who are okay with Trump’s fascism, from supporting it to simply not caring about it. The group you started this whole discussion attempting to explain. Those voters don’t want Kamala to end the filibuster or to reign in the SCOTUS because that’s bad for moderate and conservative politics, the politics those people believe in. If she proposes doing those things, those people will be more inclined to vote Trump, meaning they’re more okay with him, either in spite of or because of his fascism. The subject of Kamala appealing more to guys like you or I with her campaign promises is a separate subject altogether.

    Where did I ever say anything about not voting for Kamala?

    Are you saying I’m wrong to assume YOU aren’t voting for Kamala, or to assume you’re talking about not voting for Kamala in general? I’ll hold onto both those assumptions for a bit longer…

    Yes, I do as a matter of fact tend to argue for the things that I think are right and correct.

    Again, it doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what targets of Trump’s appeal think. You position yourself as someone who’s not okay with Trump’s fascism, but you think people who ARE will react positively to Kamala vocally taking a stronger left-leaning stance on a variety of issues. Even though that’s just what YOU want, hence my accusation of projection that you’ve so far not addressed.

    Is this supposed to be some own? Since you’re so right and smart why can’t you even form a coherent response that doesn’t involve straight up lying about the democrats own words.

    Hey, there’s more of that projection I was just talking about

    I don’t live in a swing state so yeah I’m gonna vote for PSL and talk about why I think that is good.

    …Good thing I held on to those assumptions from earlier!

    Lol you’re so out of steam.

    Crying and shaking RN.

    Lol

    • Talisker@lemmy.world
      1·
      7 days ago

      Oh I get it. You literally can’t read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.

      The border security bill – nearly identical to legislation House Republicans passed last year – was an attempt by House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana to quell growing hard-right dissatisfaction

      Jerry Nadler of New York, said the bill was a “foolhardy attempt to pass for a second time one of the most draconian immigration bills this Congress has ever seen. This rehashing of H.R. 2 is a joke.”

      https://dondavis.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-conservatives

      The 370-page border bill that Democrats signed off on reads like a GOP wish list. Perhaps that’s because Republicans helped write the bill (though many of them promptly turned around and helped tank it after Donald Trump announced his opposition) … the legislation is a complete concession to the worst aspects of Trumpism that Biden and Democrats purportedly ran against in 2020

      https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/harris-trump-election-border

      While policies narrowing access to asylum and expanding the border wall were once demonized by Democratic Party leaders, they are now a core element of party orthodoxy,

      https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/

      If passed in its current form, the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act would be the most sweeping immigration bill of the twenty-first century. It would overhaul the process for seeking asylum in the United States—and impose an “emergency authority” that would leave asylum fully out of reach for those crossing between ports of entry for much of the next three years. It would attempt to address issues like work permits and years-long waits for asylum seekers, and also raise the initial standard a person must pass in order to access our asylum system.

      https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill

      Literally can do this all day. You want me to go on? Probably no since you’re not gonna read any of that anyways or pretend those things don’t actually say what they say. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative).

      republicans killed the bill ‘because it goes too far to crack down on the border’, then that’d be democrats moving to the right of Republicans

      Lol, desperate, desperate, desperate. That’s not that I said and that’s not why they killed it. The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house. As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn’t want to give Democrats a “win”. Then every Republican internally admitted that the border bill was the “best one” they would have ever gotten and gave them everything they wanted and more. Like it or not, that IS running to the right of Republicans. Can the Republicans change their stance and go farther right? Yeah of course, they’re fascists. But it doesn’t change the fact that Democrats were willing to go farther right than even fascists were proposing.

      First off…technically,

      So she didn’t substantively say what you’re straight up lying about her saying? Apology accepted.

      She gave an open-ended answer about gender affirming care

      So “open ended” that she actually said nothing of substance. I’ve been arguing with people on the internet for decades and this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. It’s a yes or no question and she refused to answer.

      Timestamp me the part where she says “no”.

      She didn’t say no. But that’s not how political support works. When you support something you say it loudly and clearly (e.g. “I support M4A”) When you don’t support something you weasel out of it. (“Do you support M4A? - Well I support Americans getting access to the coverage they need as part of an important conversation between themselves and their doctors”). That’s how politics works and only a literal child doesn’t understand that.

      to because it was too hard

      Because it was irrelevant and you were rambling. I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow and you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about. Why would I respond to you just making new stuff up when there’s so many other places in this conversation that you’re also making stuff up that need to be addressed.

      Those voters don’t want Kamala to end the filibuster or to reign in the SCOTUS because that’s bad for moderate and conservative politics, the politics those people believe in.

      Bro they don’t want any of Kamalas policies either! That’s the point. If you want ANY chance of getting these people out of the grasp of fascist Trumpian progapanda you need to… articulate. a. clear. alternate. vision. to. fascism. You are NEVER going to win them over by doing fascism lite. You are never going to win them over by running to the right - because the fascists can always just move more right. You will never win them over with feckless centrism. You MIGHT win them over by confronting their world view over a long period of time and making a MORAL case for why fascism is wrong. If you are not confronting the MORAL implications of fascism because you are agreeing with the base premises you are going to lose.

      Are you saying I’m wrong to assume YOU aren’t voting for Kamala, or to assume you’re talking about not voting for Kamala in general? I’ll hold onto both those assumptions for a bit longer…

      Again, I personally am not voting for Kamala because our election system is a joke and I live in a safe blue state and do not have to vote for her. I have not said anything about telling anyone else how to vote - I can’t speak to anyone else’s personal situation.

      Again, it doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what targets of Trump’s appeal think.

      Do you not know how arguments work? Do you know where you are right now? What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me. I am arguing the things to you that I believe are correct. Because that’s how arguments work. Did you expect me to come out here and argue for the opposite of what I believe?

      Even though that’s just what YOU want, hence my accusation of projection that you’ve so far not addressed.

      Yes, it’s the strategy that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is the best. That is why I am arguing for it, here on the internet. Presumably you don’t believe the same which is why you’re arguing something different. That’s how conversations work. Jesus Christ, can you even pass the Turing test? You see a turtle in a desert lying on it’s back…