345
Trump rolls out bonkers Harris plane conspiracy—but photographer disproves it
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
345 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3318 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The sad thing for him is that he is Streisand Effecting her crowd size. I had multiple posts on my Facebook feed of the picture where they circled the body of the plane and the engine claiming there’s no people in the reflection, so the crowd size is fake. I stumbled onto a Snopes post of a link to a video of the actual event as proof that the photo is authentic. I watched the video, and the camera showed not only the crowd that was displayed in the picture, but it began to pull back away from the plane. The crowd just kept on going and going and going and going and going! I couldn’t believe the number of people!
So where I would have never seen a pic of a group of people waiting by her plane, now I’ve seen a group that was multiple times as large as what was in the picture, and I’m beginning to realize what a movement she has going. Thank DJT!
Any chance the Dems will learn from Obama and Harris that younger and energetic candidates that stand firm will energize voters and increase turnout?
Yes, I am assuming Harris will pull in the numbers in November because she is currently doing things overwhelmingly right on the campaign trail. Not perfect, but overall really, really well.
I'm hoping that they take a swing at all 50 states plus DC. Dean may be known primarily for his scream, but his 50 State Strategy was a good idea.
Best I can do is a bunch of DC consultants whose clients are all 120 years old who will say naw this is a one-off.
Seeing as they're rolling out Bill and fucking Hillary Clinton as speakers at the DNC to follow the already unavoidable speech by historically unpopular Biden my guess would be no.
Biden is the current president. Bill and Hillary Clinton are both still immensely popular. There's absolutely nothing wrong with showing them throw their support to Harris.
The emphasis was mostly on Hillary, who ended up historically unpopular back in 2016.^[1] In fact books ^[2] have been written on the subject of why Clinton is so hated.
Biden - as president - is an unavoidable speaker and I said as much. I'll give you Bill is fairly popular, despite being associated with establishment democrats.
So historically unpopular that she got more votes than the guy who "won" the election?
Dems held their nose and voted for her to try to avoid trump. She is historically unpopular.
Fair enough, I should have considered that!
Umm, she won the popular vote. Everyone's well aware that conservatives hate her, and enough independents in enough swing states hated her to deny her the presidency, but that doesn't mean that she's an overall unpopular figure.
Every Democrat I know that voted for her, including myself, fucking hated her as a nominee. Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is popular? That's like, demonstrably false
According to the primaries she was. In fact, according to the primaries she was nearly in the general for 2008. What's your data for demonstrably false? Certainly something more concrete than "me and my pals weren't pleased."
You'd have to be intentionally obtuse to believe she was likable. Just Google "Hillary Clinton likability", this isn't some revelation. I won't cite you a single source, because there's such an overwhelming multitude of sources, articles, polls, etc. if you are really at the point of "show me the data proving Hillary Clinton's unlikability", then you're already ignoring mountains of data and won't bat an eye at any source I send you. But feel free to Google it, it's been documented extensively over the last decade.
"There's a lot, people are saying." Okay, thank you.
whaddya know. you were proven wrong, it was insanely easy to prove, and you disappeared rather than admit you were wrong. I'm sure for years you'll be telling people how likable Hillary Clinton is. I bet you also love to rip on conservatives for being low-information, obstinate voters who won't change their minds when presented with evidence. :)
Disappeared? You are behaving like a child because someone asked you for data. I hope you can figure out how to control your rage someday.
I have very little patience for willful ignorance.
"The sky is orange and you can't prove otherwise."
"You're dumb."
"You can't find the data because it doesn't exist. The sky is orange."
Incorrect. You have endless patience for your own willful ignorance and refusal to look at real numbers instead of your feelings.
:D lol ignore that data more, chuckles
Nah, I think I'll look at the data, now that I have a minute.
Here's Clinton favorability among Dems 2016. 77-78% late in the campaign.
Dems did prefer Obama. Different poll and different questions but 88% of Dems chose Obama over McCain and 92% of Dems claimed they were excited for Obama. Give him the middle at 90%?
Here's Biden '20. Adding enthusiastic to satisfied is 91%. I don't know if that counts, elsewhere in the poll you can see a huge number of people were primarily voting against Donald.
And Harris in late July looks like 83% with Dems. Again a different poll. Hopefully she's more like 90% with Dems in a November instead of near 80% (which we know is reviled by literally everyone from your "people are saying" assertions).
Difficult to find and compare even measures this similar, and the numbers don't really support you. That's why you didn't want to check.
I did check, found the sources proved my point, and refused to spoonfeed you.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html
You cherry-picked data in an attempt to make your point, but just....proved mine? Harris has a likability problem too, and she's already at a 5 point advantage over Clinton's peak, what 3 weeks into her campaign?
Biden and Obama with 13-14% advantages? That qualifies as wildly different.
I wanted to see the data with the Dem voters to corroborate your claim that everyone hated her. I don't really care to see across all adults after months of Donald's cultists chanting "lock her up." I also wanted to compare to other campaigns to see what "normal" numbers should be.
You couldn't find anything of the sort. You're still posting data across all demographics. And you were furious about it all for some reason, also.
Yes, I agree Obama and Biden were wildly different with numbers like that. Obama was a huge win, +8 Senate and +21 House. I guess we'd agree 90% is probably above average popular.
Is 78% far, far below average? I don't know. You certainly don't know either, you haven't looked for anything because they might run contrary to your biases.
I guess I must have struck a nerve, for you to keep trying "no you're the one who won't research, you're biased!" Truth hurts, bucko. I like that you're admitting you're wrong (like a big boy!) and I was right, but still attempting to say that I didn't know I was right. Flawless logic. Have a nice life.
You were the one posting, what, three? comments while I was preoccupied today. Now you want to project the feeling of your rage onto me, just like you wish to project about lacking the data you still have not found.
You have no data to show ~80% is abnormal because the comparisons are campaigns that were wildly popular. You have zero intellectual curiosity, you could have written that instead of being weirdly and childishly standoffish. "Look at the line, me and my pals agree it is low." Compared to...?
I hope you grow as a human.
Lol, just keep repeating "u mad". Yeah lol, Biden in 2020 was WILDLY POPULAR :). I need to remember that the Internet has 16 year-olds on it.
Oh, the data you had to be spoonfed, which you claim proves you right, is now incorrect because of your feelings. Grow up. 16 would be an improvement over your level of maturity.
Damn dude, you're really taking "no u" to another level. Go touch some grass, buddy
You're so angry about being wrong. In your anger, you'll respond to this, you have no control.
And, when I quit talking to you, you'll post extra responses, like you did yesterday. Very angry.
There are positive ways to get attention, try some of those someday. LMK if you ever want to discuss actual data instead of your feelings.
"u mad" :)
"I refuse to even Google this because I know i'll be INSTANTLY proven wrong", keep sticking your head in the sand buddy
I don't think I'm any better than you are at searching. You worked at it for a while and found nothing. I'll accept that.
All the way through 2018 Hillary had very poor favorability ratings. ^[1] It's hard to find like-for-like favorability measurements made recently, but according to YouGov she does seem to have slightly rebounded over the past couple of years.^[2]
The subject of Clinton hate is enough of a topic that multiple books have been written on it, both in defense of Clinton and in prosecution.^[3]
Thanks!
I'm kinda wondering about their claim regarding 2016. On that first link if we look at the breakdown with just Dems she was like 75-90 around November. IDK if 75 disastrously low for a Dem candidate?
I'm still dubious at the idea that everyone hates her and always has. And of course still dubious that voters hate Hillary Clinton so much having her speak on one's behalf would cost their support.
I can see it. It's the young voters: the ones currently driving the Harris wave. They don't like the old, they had no interest in Biden and were old enough to absorb anti-Hillary sentiment through osmosis during 2016. The campaign now is new, feels fresh and hip. For once they have a candidate they can relate to. And what do they see when they tune into the DNC - which should be a hypefest? Stuffy old establishment Dems, including much-maligned Hillary. That to me sounds like a great way to take some wind out of the sails of the campaign.
Removed, civility.
You are extremely mad that you cannot find actual data. IDGI. That other person posted some links with actual polls you could bookmark for the future. IDK how well it supports your "everyone hates her and always has" idea though.
The data is plain to see, and it's common knowledge. It has had massive coverage for literal decades. You are the worst kind of ignorant - "I hold an insanely stupid position, I require you to force feed me easily-findable data, otherwise you're wrong and my idiotic preconceived notions are right". Even after that other person posted that data, you're pushing back on it, with nothing other than "my side feels right".
Go on, buddy, go grab that national favorability data from 2016 and post it side-by-side with other Dem candidates' favorability from their runs so we can all see how wildly different hers was.
Lol you act like they're not wildly different. Again, this stuff is pretty easy to look up. But you've proven that you're incapable, and I've proven that I'm unwilling to drag this horse to water. Bye.
If it is easy you would have looked it up.
Those independent votes are as important this election as they were in 2016, though.
That's absolutely true, of course. But that doesn't mean showing unity between old-guard, establishment Democrats and more progressive factions will be a bad thing. For one, Clinton's image has improved substantially compared to the orange turd. For another, this will definitely be seen as a positive, passing-of-the-torch kind of deal.
In fact, I'm leaning towards the opinion that denying the Clintons opportunities to speak in support of Harris would have been seen as divisive at a time when optimism and unity are driving her campaign. And independents definitely like to see optimism and unity.
Not trying to be combative here but do you have any sources? It's been hard finding recent data, but in 2018 her favorability was still very low. ^[1] The best I can find is 19% (compared to Harris 29%) backing Hillary as nominee should Biden drop out back in February. ^[2]
I can see your arguments, but I'm also wary of halting the momentum of the campaign, which has somehow managed to position itself as new and fresh and unburdened by what has been (establishment democrats).
No worries, I'll never be upset by requests for citations. Those are always legitimate to ask for.
According to YouGov, her current popularity is 42%, her "Disliked By" rating is 38%, and 18% feel neutral about her. I'd assume those numbers shift when looking only at Democrats and independents, but regardless, it's quite a distance from her 2018 favorability ratings. Source: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Hillary_Clinton
It's impressive I guess that she's clawed back to barely favourable, I'll give her that. However, I don't think you can think about only her appeal to other democrats. The DNC doesn't exist in a vacuum. The republicans have a vast array of old Hillary attack angles ready to go, and footage of Harris and Hillary together puts all of those back in play. Trump and his cronies can and will use them all in hopes of swaying independents and undecideds who still dislike Clinton. It's a vulnerability I don't think the campaign needs in exchange for dubious gains.
It's important to remember this is just a speech, not an invitation for the Clintons back into the White House. I trust the Harris team to have thought this through.
And it occurs to me they have an obvious response: "Why are you campaigning against Hillary Clinton? That's a weird thing to do, she's not running."
Politics has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with optics - if it wasn't already known since before, then the Trump win in 2016 definitively proved it. Maybe I'm overly cautious though, I just am wary of opening actual angles of attack. Right now Trump's side has nothing.