336

Harris Campaign Plans to Deploy Tim Walz as Her Anti-MAGA 'Sledgehammer' (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 78 points 2 years ago

Watching the Democrats just let this shit get worse for year and years, and then FINALLY seeing them go on the offense, it reminds me of this scene from pool hall junkies

[-] SuperIce@lemmy.world 87 points 2 years ago

I think that's why Kamala is skyrocketing in the polling averages. We actually have a candidate who is energetic and fights back against the Republican candidate instead of trying to just ignore it and try not to offend anyone.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago

Or throwing away their base to appeal to "moderates" (eg, class traitors).

[+] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone -10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Democrats have been non stop winning elections since 2016

Edit: ffs yall of course I know Trump won in 2016 are we really doing this shit?

[-] finley@lemm.ee 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[removed by mod]

[+] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone -8 points 2 years ago

…”since 2016” is 2 of the 9 words I commented with. Surely that wasn’t too long of a sentence to read?

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Do you understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of, or exclusive of the year?

To over explain:
I understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of the year, which would imply you’re saying they won 2016.
But the only way your statements make sense to me is if you understand them to exclude 2016.

Not attempting to argue. I literally can’t tell if I’m shifting off the linguistics baseline as I age/my neurodiversity seems to be getting worse, or if I’m just fucking losing it.

Edit: Another, more likely meaning occurred to me. You may be asserting they won the presidential election, which - they did not. They won the popular vote. They lost the election, however, because presidential elections are designed so that landowners have more say than raw numbers of voters.
It’s an unjust and inequitable electoral approach, but it is the way U.S. presidential elections are determined.

[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can actually interpret it both ways but based on context and the fact that we all know Donald Trump won in 2016 I would hope people aren’t so difficult online as to default to the obviously wrong interpretation. It seems I’ve once again underestimated how stubborn people can be online in the service of correcting people. Truly that capacity is bottomless so long as there is even a the flimsiest handhold to cling to.

The implication is since Donald Trump won in 2016. Are you done deliberately misinterpreting me or do you want to swap over to playing dense or some other nonsense now since there’s no more room for ambiguity? Can we actually go back to the original point or are you going to keep playing this game?

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago

I’m not sure how to respond, other than to note that you’re 1.) excessively hostile and attribute intent to an inquisitive, non-challenging comment that offered you an extreme amount of leeway in which you could respond in a not-dickish manner, and 2.) you implied something in a medium where you do not know your audience and cannot convey subtext, then got defensive when your failure to explicitly communicate resulted in others misunderstanding you.

My main comment was about linguistics, really. “Since 2016” is factually wrong with no hint you’re implying something else. I was willing to accept that perhaps I was not up with shifting language trends. What you believe you were saying - the implied ‘since Trump’s 2016 win’ makes perfect sense, but that is not what you wrote.
Considering that others actually challenged you on that point and you are generally underwater in your vote ratio, I think it’s fair to say that you are the outlier, and it is not others reaching to misunderstand you or attempt to correct you. It must be a very frustrating existence to poorly communicate and expect others to understand you.

And my edit was offering you an opportunity to sidestep the whole linguistics part of it (of which, I remind you - I was not telling you that you were wrong, but asking you if my interpretation was wrong.), and say you meant that the democrats won the popular vote, which is true. My other additions were my own lamentations of the bullshit electoral system, which you seem to have taken as a personal attack.

I hope you have a day that is as lovely as you.

[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Don’t high road me after that frustrating display of pretending you didn’t understand what I meant. This isn’t a linguistics class, this isn’t an academic paper. My point was clear and you did the annoying “internet correcting” thing. Now you’re falling back on technicalities that aren’t at all necessary to the discussion.

The point is democrats have been winning national elections basically nonstop since Trump won in 2016. That was clear. So talk about the subject at hand or don’t talk at all. Stop wasting our time with this crap.

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago

You could also choose not to waste people’s time by communicating effectively. We’re not in your head.

[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 years ago

I have explained it twice now so at this point you’re just in this argument for the fight. I’m done with this nonsense. Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. I’m blocking you and won’t be reading it either way.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

They also won 2016, to be fair. They’ve won every presidential election since 2004

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago

Bring the pain Waltz. These weirdos deserve it.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Walz not Waltz.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

I dont understand why democrat feel like they pretended there was no one else except Biden - Kamala to be the next president when they had a normal person like Walz. He seems more qualify, energetic, and likeable than Kamala.

[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 years ago

Because Biden wanted to be president again and the incumbent always gets the say. Glad it was different this time.

[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Walz didn't run in the primary.

Our choice was biden, some blue dog conservative Dem from Minnesota, or rfk.

Biden was the best of the lot.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Tradition. Tradition is frequently stupid. That's why they had to sweet-talk Biden into calling off his bid. Granted there are reasons to do it that way, but nobody cares much anymore, they just didn't want to stick their necks out and be called traitors, even if there was little to no risk of splitting the party.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago

I don't understand why democrat[s] [...] pretended there was no one else except Biden

It's only been mentioned about a bajillion times. Go learn why switching out the incumbent is a bad idea. Go.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Switching out the incumbent seems to be working pretty damn well right now.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I think the timing of Biden deciding not to run was perfect. If he had dropped out before or during primaries, I'm not sure we'd have all this energy and momentum.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

In a democratic situation, I think if party know alot of people not supporting him and he should step down, they should have announce it before so the voter base can decide who they want. Giving Kamala an advantage doesn't seem democratic.

[-] papertowels@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago

Idk about you but I've literally never heard of the guy before.

[-] Triasha@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

He blew up for me over the past 10 days.

But the New York times wrote an article about him as a teacher in 2006 the year he first ran for Congress.

[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago

I really hope they did extensive background checks on him.

[-] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 2 years ago

He was a teacher for ten years, I highly doubt the dems would have considered him unless they were thorough.

Even the implication of being involved with a minor could be catastrophic to morale.

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024

336 points (98.6% liked)

politics

31213 readers

3123 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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