Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
It's really beyond time for this sort of disinformation to fuck off.
Harris lost because she's a neoliberal, full stop. Scapegoating it as sexism means you learned fucking nothing and will only keep losing.
If you think sexism wasn't a significant part of this, I don't know what to tell you. Of course it was. Biden wasn't better than her in any way and he won against Trump. Despite the fact that practically no one was excited to vote for him. It's baffling you're even questioning this.
Biden wasn't better, Trump's issues were just more in the forefront of people's minds. They asked themselves "do I want more of this" and said no. Since then there have been rose colored glasses that make people think he was good for the economy and they've forgotten the chaos. And now the "do I want more of this" question is moving against the Democrats and a candidate that was reticent to truly separate herself from "this".
Whether sexism was an important part of it or not isn't the point.
The point is that if we allow that statement to pass unchallenged, it will take over the narrative, none of the necessary reforms will happen, and the world will continue to get worse.
Right we can only talk about one thing. Fair.
We can talk about the one thing that's important, or we can talk about mostly-irrelevant bullshit that not only fails to solve the problem, but actively works against solving it by serving as a distraction. I mean, if you just fucking love failure and losing for some reason, I guess you could do the latter, but why?
Any sane adult should have beat Trump. He won because 72 million Americans want fascism.
Once all the smart, wealthy, moral, and ethical people flee the US that can flee the US do flee the US I'll finally be able to get a job!
Misogyny is an easy excuse that doesn't question the effectiveness of any of the politicians or consultants involved in the race. People forget that Biden only barely won what should have been an easy race. Now the difference between losing and barely winning is a big deal, but they all ran pretty similar campaigns trying to get the "good Republicans" while neglecting their base. Maybe Biden's shriveled dick was the difference to get him to barely squeak past Trump while a woman wouldn't, but none of these races should have been close. There's a much bigger problem at play than "just don't run women because too sexist".
Not defending bidens record here but are you really dissing an 81 yo dick? You think anyone has a girthy hog at 81?
Arnold Palmer maybe.
Also, is this post serious? Because I'm assuming someone taking offense about colorful language about an old man's penis can't possibly be so, but it's being played very straight that this is a real thing worthy of conversation.
Huh? I just think it's weird to bring up as like, a burn.
We're a mile down in a Lemmy thread, nothing here is serious.
He won by more than she lost by. It's not an excuse, it's just a part of the equation that cannot be ignored.
In a win as close as his, that's not saying anything particularly significant. Biden's win was what, 80,000 votes or so?
I'm with you. Some of the simplicity of this is what's going to keep these cycles going.
Honestly, I feel we have a huge disinformation problem. A war really where billionaires, Russia, Iran,and China are on one side and we're on the other. They treat it like a war while we treat it like a small infestation. So many Republicans I speak with bring up reason why they support trump that are reasonable: Better economy, Protecting children, protecting rights, protecting jobs, reducing crime.in a vacuum, cool candidate. Except that many of the strategies he utilize to accomplish those goals seems illegal or unhelpful. Even worse, who cares if he could and would accomplish those goals, He tried to overthrow the government. Yet all the Republicans I know view that as untrue. Mainly in the form of, "I don't hear about it much, so it's either fake news,or not really a coup"
Why? Because they get their news from faux news and social media that have focused on keeping those negative aspects of him buried. And both of those things have huge reach.they are the eyes and ears of these voters, how can they not believe their eyes and ears that tell them that Trump is great?
Until that problem is dealt with, we can't have an informed population that votes. Instead we will have a large group of uninformed voters. It's not their fault, they're just some of the first casualties in this disinformation war.
I saved a comment from u/allmhuran posted to r/news on 2016-06-24:
"Australia has had five prime ministers in five years, the poor yanks look as though they'll have to choose between two options both of which have more disapproval than approval, and the UK leaves the EU. It seems like a ridiculous amount of instability. One might even call it absurd.
But it's not surprising.
You can't feed a society exaggeration, hyperbole and propaganda for over a decade, and then claim surprise when people don't seem to be making rational decisions on the basis of well established truth.
There's a cost associated with not telling the truth. There's a cost associated with polarized, adversarial public discourse. There's a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.
It is, apparently, time to pay the piper."
And what's the suggestion here? I'm not getting it.
They aren't suggesting anything. They're saying we're poisoned and it's gone critical.
There’s a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.
Media: good thing we're not the ones paying the price! Continue current heading, profits ho!
Very well stated. We need to operate within this reality instead of the fantasy land created by those who will be fine either way.
Unless that the large portion of americas population that thinks the ultra rich are awesome suddenly stops thinking that way then it’s gonna be a difficult battle.
The worst part is all of those claims can be easily debunked, but not a one of them will ever believe it.