this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
403 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3314 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. 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.
  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
 

The podcaster and radio host also excoriated what he saw as the media's double standards and failure to convey the true danger of Trump's rhetoric.

In a clip that has gone viral on social media, Charlamagne, a popular podcaster and co-host of the nationally syndicated radio show The Breakfast Club, is asked by host Anderson Cooper about Trump's plan to appear on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and whether Harris planned to do the same.

“I think that she should keep calling Donald Trump a fascist,” Charlamagne replied tersely.

He continued, “And I think that Americans need to keep looking at the rhetoric of Donald Trump because I don’t know why we’re even thinking about electing somebody who’s talking about putting people in camps. I don’t know why we’re talking, why we want to elect somebody who’s talking about mass deportation. I don’t know why we’re having this conversation about somebody who wants to terminate the constitution to overthrow the results of an election. Aren’t we supposed to be a patriotic country? Whenever somebody like Colin Kaepernick takes a knee in this country, everybody talks about, ‘Oh, that’s so unpatriotic.’ But a guy can say he wants to terminate the constitution to overthrow the results of an election and nobody cares?”

Addressing Cooper, Charlamagne said, “Now, you brought it back to Kamala and Joe Rogan, Anderson, who gives a damn?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 126 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

Absolutely refreshing 9-minute conversation that put Cooper on his heels, capped off with this:

"Some of what we're talking about tonight, Anderson, is not actually an opinion at all. It is just the facts. And you are one of the most trusted voices on television, and it is important in those moments where you know those conversations devolve into nonsense, particularly on the other side of the aisle. There are conspiracy theories--they won't even say her name right! That has to be checked in the moment because that is what fascism looks like, that is how we start sliding down a very slippery slope, and we cannot afford to be here. The election is 12 days away, and this should not be even what is on the ballot, but democracy is on the line. That is not a partisan issue, it is the truth. And I think that's what's important for cable news networks, in particular, to be saying, whether you're on Fox, you're on CNN, or you're on MSNBC. For all of us, that is our responsibility and our patriotic duty."

God damn I hope we don't look back on these moments as our last chance before the dominoes started falling...

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Anderson, being gay, should be especially vocal.

First they came for the "illegals"

Etc.

He is on whatever list of lists they have.

He may not be first in line, but he will be.

Fascism wants only a certain kind.

Anderson is not that kind.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

He's a fucking Vanderbilt, he'll be fine

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)