-17
There’s only one relevant question
(robertreich.substack.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
-17 points (34.0% liked)
politics
18821 readers
4657 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Why the fuck are we getting astroturfed with this same style of article over and over on Lemmy?"
Was that the question?
Mood, how are like 90% of articles pushing this narrative instead of pointing out Trumps latest new heights of dementia ranting.
We meed to push and down vote this Biden shit and post and share latest info on what new crazy shit trump is brain rotting about now and what implications it has.
Why. Not. Both.
People can hold two thoughts in their mind at once. Trump and the implication of his second term is a fucking scourge and an existential threat…
ANDDDDD
Biden is an old man who needs to be sent out to pasture because he can’t keep up anymore.
Jesus Christ why is Lemmy having such a difficult it time with this?!
Because we don’t have time for both. We have time for one thing now, and if we win the election, then we can address the rest afterward. Priorities, dude.
Don’t be selfish. Making sure that democracy defeats fascism is more important than whatever specific thing you have in mind right now. Because if we don’t do the first thing, we’ll all get stuffed gas chambers and ovens all no one will be left alive to care about the second thing.
And when all of our skin is searing off, then you can call me melodramatic
Sharing news about trump helps trump. He feeds off it and so do the press. Discussing Biden is better than discussing trump. What this article point out is that its questionable that Biden is suitable to be president. Its clear Trump isn't. Who else has a shot? Nobody. That's sad state of affairs.
And how long does sharing articles shitting all over Biden help Biden? Because his poll numbers keep going down the more that happens. The more people talk about Trump, the more as numbers go up.
Your reasoning is obvious bullshit, and the facts have backed that up for the better part of a decade
There are a decade of articles shitting over trump. Its helped him. Negative articles about Hilary, Biden Obama were all successful.
Democrat candidates run on a platform. Republican candidates run on fear. Trump has ridden a wave. He is media savvy but not very bright, nor did he invent this phenomenon. He just benefitted from it.
While there is significant anti-Biden sentiment that was here before things became royally borked, Dem Congresscritters have came out and said Biden should step down from the candidacy. It's unprecedented, and represents a collapse of faith in the party elite of Biden's ability to win the election. I would have preferred not to change candidates like this, but it's rapidly becoming our best option. You're seeing a lot of articles like this because there are a lot of people chewing their fingernails down to the bone over it.
Because https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/06/biden-trump-race-rebecca-solnit?
"Anything that I don't like must be astroturf."
Have you seen the volume of this shit? It's the quantity of the same rehashed narrative that is pissing me off.
That's just journalism in the internet age. Its a pile on for clicks. However, they still make a good point, in a slightly indifferent way, updated for the most current information.
Your comment did neither, so should we consider you astroturfing?
You can consider me as anything you want. Your perogative.
Yep, but usually in a discussion the whole point is for you to express your view in a way that makes it clear, rather than leaving it up to me to decide. Your perogative.
I used short, simple sentences so my point should have been clear.
No, you used rhetorical questions, which leave interpretation up to the reader and are not a statement by design.
Language is hard. Being a good person is harder. Making an effective point is tricky too. You'll need to work on them all.
Your point wasn't very u clear. Worse than that. It was dull.
That is about as clear as it gets.
That is not your original comment. That is 3 comments deep, 2 for you, lol.
Again, you missed the point about there being similar articles for a popular news story and that this one was updated with the latest information, therefore relevant.
Your comment was neither incisive nor helpful. Your commenting is neither friendly nor understanding. Nor do you seek to learn, so I wonder why you even bother to comment. Your comments are the same detritus you complain about.
Neutral is the word you should be using. Zero emotion. There is nothing I could say that would make you change your opinion, and vice versa.
On that, you were looking too deep into all of this. After that last paragraph of what seems to be insults, I really don't care about your opinion now.
No, abrasive is more accurate. You probably think its neutral, but it isn't. That's the point. Youre being critical of people explaining to you what you clearly don't understand.
And that must mean that there's a conspiiiiiiiracy to make Biden look bad? That it's astroturf? No. People are noticing that all "he's fine! he just has a stutter/a cold/jet lag/etc" narrative that the party has been going with was utter garbage. Biden keeps saying shit that makes him look unwell. The press runs with shit like that and always has. Quayle's potato. Dean's scream. Bill Clinton's blowie. GWB's mission accomplished banner. GHWB's "read my lips" speech.
The press isn't Biden's PR flack squad. Biden fucked up, and the party fucked up by trying to keep everyone from knowing what is now undeniable.