this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
113 points (89.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3625 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 143 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It gave him a microphone that helped hang himself. It was nothing but a PR disaster for him. NABJ is a journalist organization. Journalists should talk to opposition candidates, as well as friendly candidates.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

he was probably hoping they would push back more, so he could say "see!? [insert racist stereotype] just like you thought they would!!!"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Journalists should talk to opposition candidates...

Only if they're willing to call them out on their shit. Most of the time, "journalists" allow contemptuous liars and fascists to spout their nonsense unchallenged. This was a rare case where the journalists asked good questions and held Trump's feet to the fire.

Good on the people at the NABJ for not holding back.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

True. But not sociopathic narcissists who try to overthrow the government and have been convicted of massive fraud and lying about their rapes.

It worked out, yes, but not so for CNN or a bunch of other groups that pretended this person was close to normal.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago

That’s the difference. They held him to account in front of a camera in a way CNN hasn’t before. They didn’t treat him like a normal person.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Another way to look at it: They gave him some rope, and what he chose to do with it was up to him. He went there to appeal to black voters but instead made a racist fool of himself.

I can't speak for "why" they chose to platform him, but on the bright side, it did seem to backfire spectacularly.

This like the 3rd time I've used this article quote, but it's just so illustrative of the whole debacle that it's worth repeating:

Facing three Black women, he insulted the first Black woman on the top of a major-party ticket and seemed perfectly comfortable disparaging his hosts, even as he tried to appeal to Black voters as their best choice for safeguarding Black well-being.

-- Trump Questions Harris’s Racial Identity, Saying She Only ‘Became Black’ Recently

At this point in the game, he's already got the racist vote locked up. Anyone still on the fence should look at that and ask themselves if that's really who they want.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So Kamala was also invited to speak, but she had to be at a funeral and couldn’t come. She offered to do it on Zoom, but the NABJ declined. To me this is more an indictment of them. I heard an interview with Jamele Hill, who is a member of NABJ since 1992, and she’s says that most members are angry that they chose not to let Kamala attend via Zoom, and there’s a good chance that the entire NABJ leadership will be voted out at the next election over this.

They did give Trump a microphone, but he probably just used it to crap all over himself with black voters. The affluent black voters will vote for him because they’re convinced that he’ll lower their taxes, and that’s all they care about, but I can’t see this helping him and only hurting with the average black voter.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

So Kamala was also invited to speak, but she had to be at a funeral and couldn’t come. She offered to do it on Zoom, but the NABJ declined. To me this is more an indictment of them

I'm willing to give them a pass on this because Trump complained that he had wanted to do the interview remotely and they had also declined for him.

It sounds like the ground rules for both included "it has to be in person" and the NABJ stuck to their guns on that.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s a pretty disingenuous interpretation of this event.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

That’s because it is intentional subterfuge to try and diffuse the PR disaster.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

gave him a microphone to bury himself. the interview wasn't very good for his campaign

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

What kind of tie would you like, Mr. tRump?

Give me the longest, cheapest tie you got.

We have this tie here, but it's meant to be a novelty tie for depressed clowns to hang themselves with.

Give me a dozen.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So? We don't need a running stream of random 200% zoom bad Twitter comments. It's a bad place, you'll find an ideal idiot for any story. That idiots exist is neither enlightening nor important.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

The Advocate Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Name: The Advocate Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/advocate/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.