He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just to remind everyone in 2016 people had pretty much already planned their Clinton victory parties and everyone “knew” that Trump was going to lose, the polling was so clear and Trump was such a joke. Perhaps some even took care of “more important” stuff than voting because it was so sure.

    So keep your excitement to take you to the voting booths rather than letting it make you complacent.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Unfortunately I don’t see Kamala winning just yet, nothing is certain, there’s a lot of Trump supporters in the wood work, and the establishment liberal media play a game of “maybe if we pretend they’re losing, they’ll lose”.

      …which is wishful thinking that destroys people’s grip on reality, and causes a lot of voters to not bother to show up.

        • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          Are you kidding? The “establishment” (mainstream) media is extremely left. They don’t like trump and do all they can to hurt his campaign.

          Where do you live?

            • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              … NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX (fox has fallen into this group recently), etc. It’s crazy that more folks don’t realize this. 90% of MSM is pro liberal agenda.

              Liberals know mostly know this, but they don’t care because they are on their side. MSM bias for the left isn’t even argued. It’s common knowledge (at least it should be).

              Many many local news stations are also run by this media conglomerate, and that’s why you will see all these news stations reading from the same script. They have a collective agenda. Well, actually, it’s not THEIR agenda, it’s the agenda of a VERY small group fed to these stations to repeat.

            • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Ok, maybe it’s more correct to say ‘totally’ left or ‘completely’ left, but that’s what it is. That’s why it’s called the “liberal media.”

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                The term “liberal media” is only used by those within the corporate media itself, right wing kool-aid drinkers, or with scare quotes around it by the actual left.

                • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The term “liberal media” is a correct term because 90% of major news outlets (and media in general) lean left. This is accepted by everyone who has eyes to see.

                  This is a good place for you to be. It’s easy to do little research and find that MSM leans left, like 95% of major news outlets do. The bias for things that are left of center in media isn’t even argued by left, or right, or anyone. The only people who don’t realize this are those who have “drank the kool-aid”. Please, just do a couple of google searches. These major news outlets don’t even really hide it. Google “the liberal media” or “major news outlets bias”. Something like that.

    • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The mainstream media just doesn’t reflect/represent the majority of Americans anymore and hasn’t for quite some time, actually.

  • prime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    As much as I’d like to celebrate, I can only think about how the attitude was the same regarding Hillary, and we all saw how that turned out. Fingers crossed.

    • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      It’s the truth, though… If trump could beat out Hillary, Kamala stands no chance in hell.

      Edit: Quit reading into this. It’s an opinion based on observation. It’s fine if you disagree and want to tell me why I’m wrong. I welcome that. But assuming I’m pro-trump or anti-harris because of this comment is an assumption you shouldn’t be making. I said nothing to indicate support for either.

        • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          “Time” is the greatest clarifier. This narrative you’re talking about isn’t made from lies about Hillary. It is about things that were called called lies at first, but then, over time, were proven to be correct. But by they time they were proven correct, hardly anyone cared about it anymore, the focus had shifted to other topics, and the MSM hardly reported on it.

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The energy around Clinton was different, even most dems weren’t thrilled with Hillary and she was unpopular with undecided voters, meanwhile we know and have seen the threat that is Trump, and Harris is fairing better so far.

        We’ll see of course, but it’s not as similar as it might seem if you’re just saying “Woman vs Trump is the same”

                • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  This is from a more detailed comment I made:

                  "Tim waltz (and family) finances. Facts: Tim owns no stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs. He owns no real estate, investment property, or otherwise (neither does his wife). He also has no 401k, IRA, or any retirement fund. His net worth is estimated to be 115,000$ to 330,000$. All this is not great, considering he’s 60(ish?) nearing retirement. the average net worth for congresspeople and senators is around $1 million. His only legitimate source of income is his pension.

                  Pros or cons, we can decide for ourselves if all this makes him a better candidate for VP or not. We can make some assumptions, and one assumption I can make is that waltz personally seems to be financially ignorant.

                  There are other pros and cons about Waltz, but as far as finances, Tim Waltz is a scrub. And I think that these facts are very important when considering electing him into a position where he’s at the controls for financial decisions for an ENTIRE country… whatever side you lean toward, all this should be concerning."

                • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  There are reasons, but what sticks out to me is that he seems financially illiterate. Neither he nor his wife own a home or any other assets. He owns no business. No stocks, bonds, securities, 401K or investments anywhere. Waltz ownz nothing… None of this is bad, necessarily, if you’re a regular citizen, but I’d want/expect someone running for Vice President to be more financially savvy.

                  Tim waltz is a scrub