• Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    110
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Harris is lucky to have Trump running

    without Trump the Democrat’s whole campaign platform would crumble

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, with Trump running the race is still basically a dead heat, so I’m not sure how lucky they really are.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        2 days ago

        We’re not unlucky because trump is running necessarily. We’re unlucky because half the fucking country doesn’t see what an insane and horrific choice he is.

        • Elextra@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m really scared for future elections when the GOP has a candidate that is actually charismatic or articulate…

          • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            2 days ago

            They’re kinda proving that those are unnecessary, though. They’re in uncanny valley and espousing literal Nazi ideology and still getting elected. At that point, why even buy lipstick for the pig in the first place? Their dog whistles have been packed up in boxes in the attic for years. Echo chambers that blame scapegoats, vilify opponents, and deify their candidates are all that is really necessary. They can literally get away with saying “well, Hitler had some good ideas too, though…” and the base will lap it up and show up to cast their ballots.

            Charisma and articulation are off-putting to their uncharismatic and inarticulate voters anyway. That might actually do more harm than good. Because “talking good is gay” or something. It’s dumb but it’s how they feel, and their feelings don’t give a fuck about facts.

        • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think they do see it. They just think that’s a good thing.

          Enough people think competence is ‘controlling’ and education is ‘pretentious’ that they want pathetic, stupid, harmful bullshit.

          The purpose of the system is what it does, and the purpose of an ideology that discriminates is the people it chooses to harm, and the ways it finds to harm them.

      • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        She’s running against arguably the worst candidate in American history and it’s still a dead heat, what does that tell you?

        • AmidFuror@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Harris must be a nasty woman like Hillary Clinton. It can’t be because the other side has been propagandized until it went nuts.

            • Zorg@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’m guessing they were being sarcastic. Unfortunately a lot of people have yet to realize sarcasm is anything but obvious online, at least not in this day and age.

              • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I think I understood their sarcasm. They think I’m engaging in misogynistic tendencies and do actually think Trump voters are “nuts”.

                • AmidFuror@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  For the record, I don’t know if you personally judge Harris as a woman. I have no reason to think that’s true, and I don’t know if you hate Hillary, let alone your reason if you do.

                  But I think a lot of the hate for Hillary was misogynist, and many people made the argument that if Trump is awful, Hillary must have been worse to lose.

                  • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I think I understood the first paragraph before your comment but thank you for the clarification. And I do generally agree with your second paragraph as well. I do think it’s a bit reductive and is often used to draw attention from the more substantial reasons.

                    Also deciding people are nuts is a great way to alienate and isolate them which will only entrench those ideas and can further radicalize them.

        • marx2k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You could have a cockroach running against a smoked cigarette that’s been hydrating in a coffee cup for a week and as long as the cockroach was a Democrat and the cigarette were a republican, it would still be a dead heat.

        • SeriousMite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          He might be the best candidate for hateful idiots though. The guy’s a chud whisperer. I’m not sure if any smarter more articulate Republican could hold together the same radical coalition.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The alternative, if the republicans had a candidate that wasn’t a weird 80 year old billionaire, the democrats wouldn’t have a shot in hell, facilitating a genocide while endorsing 90% of republican policies from 2016 and promising what amounts to fuckall help to most people.

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah. I mean, after all… who would want to vote for someone to run a country who has spent their life practicing law /s

        • marx2k@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          So instead they should be voting for the felon that screams to use the military against his political opponents and institute the death penalty for drug dealers…

        • auzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah… The hugely vast majority of those people are people who have done crime.

          The problem isn’t the DOJ necessarily, but rather, the laws need to be refined. Having experience in courts can help with that because lawyers have more information from their clients, and know about things like coercive control. They’ve spoken to people affected.

          They’ve seen which laws should be repealed and harm mostly innocent people such as weed laws regarding possession of small quantities.

          And to identify corruption and fix it.

          What America needs at the moment is someone who is 100% on top of the law, because it’s an open secret that Trump intends to try to exploit every law he can during the election, exploit every loophole and try to exploit corruption in the system. That’s why she’s perfect.

          Whereas, I’m fairly sure Trump wouldn’t even be able to decipher any amendments (he’d need a summary)

          And having Walz as VP is perfect too due to his extensive history in the military and equally valuable history as a school teacher (so he understands kids too)

          • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            abortion is illegal in most places so now there are women who are considered criminals who have committed a crime

            are we including those women too as criminals?

            the homeless sleeping outside are committing a crime too

            should they be on this criminal list too?

            Walz and Trump worked well together too but that does not mean they did something great

            Resistance to the Line 3 pipeline expansion is led by Indigenous women and two-spirit people.[35] Ojibwe-led groups including Giniw Collective, Camp Migizi, Red Lake Treaty Camp, RISE Coalition, and Honor the Earth among others have been at the center of resistance.[36] Demonstrators and protesters organizing in opposition to the pipeline refer to themselves as “water protectors”[37] and follow a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience that includes direct actions.[38] Organizers aim to convince the Biden administration to revoke or suspend the pipeline project’s federal clean water permit.[23] Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has not taken a firm stance on the pipeline expansion, which received federal approval under the Trump administration.[18][23]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Line_3_protests

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh yea! Because campaign platforms totally aren’t built around their opponent and don’t ever change and for sure aren’t strategic or anything!

      Nothin but a lil troll account.

    • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      Are downvoters disagreeing even though the biggest slogan to come out of the DNC was “we are not going back” (plus the point of the stunt this article is about)? Or do they think any criticism whatsoever of democrats is bad? This shouldn’t be a controversial take.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        Because 1) it’s the usual “I’m totally a leftist that hates Trump yet will always blame the Dems for everything for some completely mysterious and unknown reason” bullshit, and 2) it’s a goddamn stupid take. Of course running an anti-Trump campaign wouldn’t work against anyone but Trump. Harris’ campaign strategy (which is a continuation of Biden’s) is to singularly point out the threat Trump represents, not to paint the entire GOP as a threat. And as much as it might piss off actual progressives (people who are going to vote Dem anyway because they understand what’s at stake, unlike, you know, the poster you replied to) they’re trying to reach Republican voters who don’t want Trump but need to be reminded it’s okay to vote for the other party if they have better candidates.

        • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago
          1. As a leftist that totally hates Trump, I am voting for Harris because it’s not strategic for me to do otherwise. I still have the ability to recognize that the dems are doing their damndest to uphold a broken status quo that is actively harming everyone, especially children in Palestine.

          2. Why shouldn’t they paint the entire GOP as a threat when they are the party America’s Hitler? The reason we have Trump in the first place is because the DNC wanted a bogeyman to get Hilary in in 2016, quickly found source from 2016. They shouldn’t be trying to court Republicans, they should be trying to motivate people with real progress. The reason Hilary lost was because people are sick of establishment politicians and she was the embodiment of that establishment.

          People are sick and tired of having 2 bad choices and nothing else.

        • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The criticism is that a large portion of voters wouldn’t support her if she wasn’t running against someone like Trump. I know that criticism has at least some substance because it applies to me.

          Edit: more specifically her campaign is using Trump as a bogeyman more than she’s running on actual policy.