view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
They stole the house race by having coherent policy and a functional adult leading them but yet still ultimately losing. Thanks MTG, very cool
They... Didn't though. That's exactly why they lost.
Compared to Trump they certainly did. I would be the first to tell you they fucked up, but I mean, Trump still doesn't seem to understand tariffs.
He understands just fine. He wants to replace the taxes that he doesn't pay with tariffs. A tax on poor people.
The tariffs will also crash the economy, letting Trump and Musk buy up large parts of the country for pennies on the dollar.
Maybe he does! But has he ever acknowledged the fact that consumers pay the cost publicly? He always acts like he's making other countries pay.
Of course he could just be lying for manipulative purposes, it would be very on brand. But what makes you think so in this case specifically?
He's tried tariffs before, and had the entire Republican party tell him how shit an idea they are.
But he might not believe them. He is pretty stupid and stubborn.
But I'm thinking he wants to crash the economy to buy everything at pennies on the dollar.
I think your plan is smarter than whatever he could come up with. Although apparently he has complained about the dollar being "overvalued" so maybe you're right!
I mean why are you comparing with Trump? Anyone who cares about that comparison was going to vote for her anyway.
Because we're talking about the election? What a weird question
It's a silly thing to focus on to a lot of people though, because the vast majority of people who the Democrats were supposed to be talking to weren't ever considering voting for Trump. Of course I say supposed to because in actuality you're right they were trying to appeal to Trump voters, and they failed again spectacularly as they usually do when they try to appeal to Republicans. However for the rest of us it's a moot point. They don't want to be told it's good compared to trump, because that was never an option. So saying their plan was better than Trump is like saying shooting yourself in the foot is better than shooting yourself in the head. That's not going to motivate people who would just prefer not to be shot at all.
I have been making the same argument you are for months. Absolutely no idea what you think you're arguing with but it isn't me. I agree with you.
Then why do you keep using Trump as your barometer?
I don't think he should be a barometer. The election was effectively just between him and Harris, so the comparison is obviously relevant.
If you don't think it should be a barometer then I suggest you stop using it as one. As for the election apparently your agreement with the previous post isn't quite as strong as you suggested, because it wasn't really an election between Trump and Harris for a clearly significant portion of the voters. It was between Harris and staying home. Staying home came out on top.
Jesus fucking christ I KNOW.
I agree with you and you're arguing with your imagined version of me based on a joke. This is completely pointless.
The fact is, either Trump or Harris was going to win. Making a comparison is fine. I didn't say the dems should only aspire to be better than Trump, I didn't say turnout was not a crucial factor, I didn't say any of this and if you look through my comments from before the election you'll see me saying basically exactly what you are many times.
I hope that we never talk again
Like I said, anyone who cares about that was going to vote Harris either way. The people who didn't show up are the people who didn't care about that comparison, or at least didn't care enough to go vote. Harris failed to appeal to these people in part because independently of Trump she didn't have coherent policy leading up to the election.
Honestly it wasn't that deep. Just an off the cuff joke about MTG saying they stole the house. You're right overall. I don't think it was a coherence issue but maybe
Pro tip: the coherent policy does still exist even if you don't bother to look it up. It's not like trees falling in the forest or something.
When you keep walking back on your promises two months before the election that's called not having coherent policy. Running on saving democracy is not having coherent policy. "There's not a thing that comes to mind" is not coherent policy. The only policies she stuck to until election day were the insane border wall and watered down Biden campaign promises.
Did you need someone to google that policy for you?
How cute. You think people on the whole care about policies and are very studious in examining them when considering candidates?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
And yet they "failed miserably at 'vocalizing'" the policies. Uh huh.
Sisterhood of the Traveling Goalposts!