this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
851 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
4601 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world -1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

"I dont vote for right wingers on the right or the left" is the closest I can get to a single standard to apply to all candidates. But its more nuanced than that, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

We're not electing just a president, we're also electing a party to control a branch of government. One candidate (Trump) no Dem I know would vote for anyway, so theres nothing that candidate could do to get our vote. There is no standard to apply to them.

The other is a mixed bag and the only one we'd ever vote for, with the alternative of not voting at all. We are trying to pressure that person to either be better or lose, and it sure looks like they are close to losing and are reaching for every vote they can get. Its completely rational. And you're welcome-- people like me do the work so centrists can smugly sit on their hands and snottily preach while doing absolutely nothing to make anything better. Did you vote uncommitted in the primary? no? then shut it.

But getting back on track-- Your calling it a double standard presupposes that there should be a single standard for both candidates and thats an absurd take. I'll never enable the repubs no matter if they ran a better candidate because of the awfulness of the rest of their platformand their awful way of governing, and awful donors and platform. So they dont even get considered even from the start.

OP, Surely you can understand this and are just playing at not getting it. Do you lack the empathy at all to even understand this? I guess I shouldnt be surprised. Kamala doesnt seem to understand she's not running against just trump ,she's running against party expectations who are disappointed in her right wing slant on so many issues. When she is called to answer for it, she moves the conversation to trump. It doesnt work.