639
submitted 3 months ago by oxjox@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

It's a thorough piece of opinion journalism that in 1960 would have helped end Trump's candidacy. But then, if it was 1960 and the country actually valued journalism, Trump would have been disqualified so long ago. In 2024, it probably won't be read by more than a handful of Trump followers, and even they will just sneer at it as confirming their biases about liberal elites.

I'm becoming more and more cynical about November. Swing states are polling way too heavily for Trump - he's leading in most and barely not in just a few. To me the NYT article seems obvious and impossible to dispute, but at this point we've fully partitioned ourselves as a country between those who can spot a con man and those who can't. To those who can't, we let Trump's nihilism metastasize and it's probably too late.

Too much of the country is in the throes of mass delusion, thank you Rupert Murdoch, and I'm pretty sure American democracy has only a few months left to live. I'd love to see a plan, any plan, that realistically leads to a different result. And I am going to vote in November for Biden, or whoever replaces him. But I no longer believe America's ability to do the right thing, even after it's tried everything else (as the saying goes). Now, we've tried Trump and somehow are choosing the vehemently, obviously wrong thing.

Until then, this piece is just a nice epitaph, a "we told you, you should have known" that will remind any MAGA recidivists who eventually experience leopards eating their faces after November, when Trump's next presidency inevitably reveals itself to be an autocratic destruction of American self-rule.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I find it amazing how short people's memories are.

Did everyone in the US forget COVID-19, and all of Trump's antics during it?

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 months ago

That's what's mind blowing to me! COVID was way worse than it had to be due to Trump's lack of leadership. Hell, people don't seem to remember that he cut pandemic early warning programs before COVID happened.

This is what infuriated me.

COVID spread is exponential growth, and his early misinformation, failure of leadership, refusal to believe in the danger, and continued botched response was responsible for likely hundreds of thousands of American deaths. Certainly his followers refused to mask and were aggressively in denial even when in hospitals on ventilators. We're at over 1.2 million deaths, and in my opinion even that attribution is conservative.

When even a single American is killed via incompetence by our government, it's congressional hearings and crucifixion. When we have an external force do it, like a certain event in 2001, no price is too high for retribution and deterrence. This man is responsible for 100x those American deaths? Let's make him the most powerful human on the planet.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Yet Hillary Clinton was investigated for years and judged “morally reprehensible” because of four deaths in a terror attack at an embassy where there was never any evidence she could have known or done anything.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

You mean the embassy attack that occurred after House Republicans had voted for an embassy security funding package that was $459m (£286m) less than what the Obama administration had requested?

I'm sensing a pattern here. Democrats attempt to govern. Republicans obstruct and make dangerous cuts to programs, resulting in disaster. Republicans attempt to shift blame to Democrats. Just enough swing state voters fall for this shit over and over again, allowing the cycle to repeat indefinitely.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

There are wayyyy too many magabrained that think covid was some kind of liberal hoax to make donnie look bad.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

In spite of Donald Trumps own statements during the pandemic...

And that, you know, he got hospitalized with covid.

That practically broke the internet, and its like everyone forgot.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

Well, the 60s didn't have a propaganda organization solely devoted to ensuring public opinion wouldn't turn against a criminal Republican president.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Much less, the global, state–sponsored social media and website propaganda presence we now enjoy.

The only state sponsored media propaganda we had in 1960 was CIA

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

it probably won’t be read by more than a handful of Trump followers

In actuality, most would not care, even if they believed it. They have unshakable faith that their god-emperor will be coming again to save the country from woke and put us on the path of Christian righteousness.

[-] morphballganon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

that will remind any MAGA recidivists who eventually experience leopards eating their faces

Bold of you to assume they can read

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

If this were the 1960s neither candidate would have gotten this far and would have been shamed off the ballots before the primaries.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
639 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3984 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.
  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