701
Kamala Harris says she'd take a cognitive test; challenges Trump "to take the same one"
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
701 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3469 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
Harris is lucky to have Trump running
without Trump the Democrat's whole campaign platform would crumble
I mean, with Trump running the race is still basically a dead heat, so I'm not sure how lucky they really are.
We're not unlucky because trump is running necessarily. We're unlucky because half the fucking country doesn't see what an insane and horrific choice he is.
I'm really scared for future elections when the GOP has a candidate that is actually charismatic or articulate....
They're kinda proving that those are unnecessary, though. They're in uncanny valley and espousing literal Nazi ideology and still getting elected. At that point, why even buy lipstick for the pig in the first place? Their dog whistles have been packed up in boxes in the attic for years. Echo chambers that blame scapegoats, vilify opponents, and deify their candidates are all that is really necessary. They can literally get away with saying "well, Hitler had some good ideas too, though..." and the base will lap it up and show up to cast their ballots.
Charisma and articulation are off-putting to their uncharismatic and inarticulate voters anyway. That might actually do more harm than good. Because "talking good is gay" or something. It's dumb but it's how they feel, and their feelings don't give a fuck about facts.
I think they do see it. They just think that's a good thing.
Enough people think competence is 'controlling' and education is 'pretentious' that they want pathetic, stupid, harmful bullshit.
The purpose of the system is what it does, and the purpose of an ideology that discriminates is the people it chooses to harm, and the ways it finds to harm them.
She's running against arguably the worst candidate in American history and it's still a dead heat, what does that tell you?
Harris must be a nasty woman like Hillary Clinton. It can't be because the other side has been propagandized until it went nuts.
Super healthy and helpful mindset /s
I'm guessing they were being sarcastic. Unfortunately a lot of people have yet to realize sarcasm is anything but obvious online, at least not in this day and age.
Guessing? That was obviously sarcastic.
I think I understood their sarcasm. They think I'm engaging in misogynistic tendencies and do actually think Trump voters are "nuts".
Traitor voters are nuts. Why else would they be voting for America's Hitler?
For the record, I don't know if you personally judge Harris as a woman. I have no reason to think that's true, and I don't know if you hate Hillary, let alone your reason if you do.
But I think a lot of the hate for Hillary was misogynist, and many people made the argument that if Trump is awful, Hillary must have been worse to lose.
I think I understood the first paragraph before your comment but thank you for the clarification. And I do generally agree with your second paragraph as well. I do think it's a bit reductive and is often used to draw attention from the more substantial reasons.
Also deciding people are nuts is a great way to alienate and isolate them which will only entrench those ideas and can further radicalize them.
He might be the best candidate for hateful idiots though. The guy’s a chud whisperer. I’m not sure if any smarter more articulate Republican could hold together the same radical coalition.
You could have a cockroach running against a smoked cigarette that's been hydrating in a coffee cup for a week and as long as the cockroach was a Democrat and the cigarette were a republican, it would still be a dead heat.
The alternative, if the republicans had a candidate that wasn't a weird 80 year old billionaire, the democrats wouldn't have a shot in hell, facilitating a genocide while endorsing 90% of republican policies from 2016 and promising what amounts to fuckall help to most people.
Kinda like how Trump's whole campaign fell apart when Biden dropped out? Weird.
And people would vote for Jill Stein instead?
Pass me those drugs you're doing LMAO
Oh yea! Because campaign platforms totally aren't built around their opponent and don't ever change and for sure aren't strategic or anything!
Nothin but a lil troll account.
Yeah. I mean, after all.. who would want to vote for someone to run a country who has spent their life practicing law /s
people who have been ate up by the justice system might have some hesitations
Yeah.. The hugely vast majority of those people are people who have done crime.
The problem isn't the DOJ necessarily, but rather, the laws need to be refined. Having experience in courts can help with that because lawyers have more information from their clients, and know about things like coercive control. They've spoken to people affected.
They've seen which laws should be repealed and harm mostly innocent people such as weed laws regarding possession of small quantities.
And to identify corruption and fix it.
What America needs at the moment is someone who is 100% on top of the law, because it's an open secret that Trump intends to try to exploit every law he can during the election, exploit every loophole and try to exploit corruption in the system. That's why she's perfect.
Whereas, I'm fairly sure Trump wouldn't even be able to decipher any amendments (he'd need a summary)
And having Walz as VP is perfect too due to his extensive history in the military and equally valuable history as a school teacher (so he understands kids too)
abortion is illegal in most places so now there are women who are considered criminals who have committed a crime
are we including those women too as criminals?
the homeless sleeping outside are committing a crime too
should they be on this criminal list too?
Walz and Trump worked well together too but that does not mean they did something great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Line_3_protests
Your abortion argument actually supports my argument entirely.
Thanks for that
So instead they should be voting for the felon that screams to use the military against his political opponents and institute the death penalty for drug dealers...
Are downvoters disagreeing even though the biggest slogan to come out of the DNC was "we are not going back" (plus the point of the stunt this article is about)? Or do they think any criticism whatsoever of democrats is bad? This shouldn't be a controversial take.
Because 1) it's the usual "I'm totally a leftist that hates Trump yet will always blame the Dems for everything for some completely mysterious and unknown reason" bullshit, and 2) it's a goddamn stupid take. Of course running an anti-Trump campaign wouldn't work against anyone but Trump. Harris' campaign strategy (which is a continuation of Biden's) is to singularly point out the threat Trump represents, not to paint the entire GOP as a threat. And as much as it might piss off actual progressives (people who are going to vote Dem anyway because they understand what's at stake, unlike, you know, the poster you replied to) they're trying to reach Republican voters who don't want Trump but need to be reminded it's okay to vote for the other party if they have better candidates.
As a leftist that totally hates Trump, I am voting for Harris because it's not strategic for me to do otherwise. I still have the ability to recognize that the dems are doing their damndest to uphold a broken status quo that is actively harming everyone, especially children in Palestine.
Why shouldn't they paint the entire GOP as a threat when they are the party America's Hitler? The reason we have Trump in the first place is because the DNC wanted a bogeyman to get Hilary in in 2016, quickly found source from 2016. They shouldn't be trying to court Republicans, they should be trying to motivate people with real progress. The reason Hilary lost was because people are sick of establishment politicians and she was the embodiment of that establishment.
People are sick and tired of having 2 bad choices and nothing else.
Criticism? Where did you find it? That was just a silly take with no substance whatsoever.
The criticism is that a large portion of voters wouldn't support her if she wasn't running against someone like Trump. I know that criticism has at least some substance because it applies to me.
Edit: more specifically her campaign is using Trump as a bogeyman more than she's running on actual policy.