Blue no matter who. 2024, 2026, 2028. This was preventable
Also, don't wait for an election, start protesting now. There may never be a free election again
This is an active propaganda campaign with no basis in reality, and you are eating it up because you want it to be true to justify your emotions.
13 articles analyzed so far. All regurgitating the same anonymous sources. It would appear Project Mockinbird is alive and well, and doing a number on folks.
This is BlueAnon tier reporting.
You should be allowed to hate on a political party, it's weird to think that's inherently an issue (especially in the current climate). I think a big part of the problem is in the US we're only allowed 2 parties so if one doesn't stuff you find unacceptable you sorta just need to support the other. Gotta love the "land of the free".
For example: there's a difference between saying immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" (direct Trump quote) and "I would never vote for a Republican". The latter is generally fine and expected in any democracy. People have party preferences.
Edit: there's also context and matters of degree that matter here but this is an HN comment and I'm not gonna write an essay.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/04/trump-poison-blood-qu... -- not even Snopes agrees with this take, and it is wildly out of context.
This out of context take was started by Hasan Piker, a billionaire (or maybe multimillionaire I forget) zoomer streamer self professed 'socialist' lol:
"I was up in New Hampshire the other day. The biggest complaint they have—it’s with all of the problems going on in the world, many of the problems caused by Hillary Clinton and by Barack Obama. All of the problems—the single biggest problem is heroin that pours across our southern border. It’s just pouring and destroying their youth. It’s poisoning the blood of their youth and plenty of other people. We have to have strong borders. We have to keep the drugs out of our country. We are—right now, we’re getting the drugs, they’re getting the cash. We need strong borders. We need absolute—we cannot give amnesty."
I don't really like the phrase because it is definitely easy to use out of context - but heroin and fentanyl are in fact poisoing the blood of this country, and eliminating that is an admirable goal.
There is another quote where he uses the phrase and you can see the full video/context, but the bottom line is not even snopes can get on board with this interpretation and they definitely would if they could manage.
They once claimed a convicted terrorist wasn't a terrorist because there was no universally accepted definition of terrorism, since 'The Weather Underground' were a democrat-aligned group and they will bow down to anything left.
And yet, they still don't agree with what is being claimed here....
The other quote was also in reference to drugs:
"TRUMP: No, nobody has ever seen anything like this. And I think we could say worldwide. I think you could go to the... you could go to a banana republic and pick the worst one, and you're not going to see what we're witnessing now. No control whatsoever. Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions [and] insane asylums. We know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have. And I got to know a lot of the heads of these countries. They're very cunning people. Very street-smart people. If they're not street-smart, they're not going to be there very long. And when they send up those caravans, and I had it ended, we had the safest border in the history of our country, meaning the history, over the last 80 years. Before that, I assume it was probably not so bad. There was nobody around. But, we had the safest in recorded history by far. The least amount of drugs in many, many decades.*"
Can you make a fake argument that this is implying race mixing is bad? I guess, but you'd be a liar. It is very clear he was using what is in my opinion a terribly worded phrase due to the ease of taking it out of context.... but you would be a liar if you said whattdb7893 said.
Here's an NBC article that mentions some other times he's said it after that article you linked. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-doubles-...
Edit: also you mention some Streamer named Hasan but your Snopes article references some news host with it looks like a last name of Hasan and I don't think they are the same person
That was a legitimate oversight on my part and unfortunate since it detracts from the core message, which is that the quotes are wildly out of context and clearly about drug not 'race mixing' like is being claimed here.
Look sources and everything.
This appears to be a 'source' claiming one of the DOGE people that Musk hired made a comment perceived as racist in the past. I'm not sure what that source is supposed to add to a conversation that has nothing to do with anybody in it, so I have to assume you meant to reply to someone else.
I think you are lost, but hope you find your way!
EDIT: Just so no one else has to jump through the paywall hoops, here is the 'source' in a readable format: https://archive.is/k1FGs
tl;dr - A DOGE staffer made a racist comment and is no longer with the staff as a result. Not sure what that is supposed to do with taking Trumps quotes out of context deliberately, but I'll save you a few clicks ;)
Thats a legit oversight on my part, even though he did raise a big stink it's not relevant here and dtracts from the real point that these quotes are clearly out of context and used to justify casting Trump as some kind of KKK member despite all of his attempts to help minorities through things like the "Platinum Plan"
In truth, though, I don't think much of this is organic. Right-wing TV and radio (Gingrich, Limbaugh, Carlson, etc.) have been rotting brains around the country for decades. Our current situation is the result of a concerted propaganda campaign by the powerful and wealthy going all the way back to the Nixon impeachment, not some day-to-day disagreements about taxes or culture war issues.
I lost my own father to this pipeline. He is basically the “How I lost my father to Fox News” case except it was AM radio over decades as a long haul truck driver. He went from being an intellectually curious atheist to a Bible thumping trumper who constantly rants about Muslims coming to kill us all. The man has never met a Muslim in his life. I don’t recognize him anymore.
I lost my mom to this too. She was turned anti-vax during covid and ended up dying to it in 2022. She successfully beat lung cancer after smoking all her life and then wouldn’t take the most basic precautions she had provided to her kids when we were growing up without any controversy and Covid won.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
"This is dangerous to democracy"
I'm well aware of that clip, and it disgusted me when it first began circulating nearly a decade ago.
I am opposed to govt influence in media and journalism, period. It doesn't matter which side you pick. Yes, Sinclair Broadcast Group has a right-leaning bias, and the way they have monopolized local news is sickening.
Sinclair is a blight on 'local news' for a variety of reasons, but having a right-bias really is the least of them when you consider how many of the 'big media' companies have a 'liberal bias'. To me the concern here is really the death of local reporting which is being outsourced to a monolithic entity with no stake in the local community.
Here is a general breakdown of the national / international players and their bias:
Comcast - Liberal Bias (https://freebeacon.com/politics/comcasts-agenda/)
Disney - Liberal Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Walt_Disney_C...)
Warner Bros Discovery - Mixed Bias (Although they own CNN, which is viewed largely as liberal bias: https://www.newsminimalist.com/articles/cnn-faces-financial-...)
Paramount - Liberal Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Paramount_Global)
Sony - Mixed Bias
AT&T (which largely owns the Time Warner conglomerate now): Mixed Bias (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/at-t-inc/summary?id=D000000...)
News Corp - Conservative Bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart) National Amusements (which owns Paramount, MTV, BET, CBS, Viacom which is a conglomerate in and of itself and many more) - Liberal Bias (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-amusements-inc/sum... + https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-07-02-1716/banking-and-fi...)
Viacom - Liberal Bias
Sinclair Broadcast Group - Conservative Bias
These companies compromise the vast majority of media available, particularly in the US. They are all so large with so many subsidiaries it would be impossible to break them all down in a HN comment, but just counting the 'heads of the snake' we have:
Liberal bias: 5 out of this list
Conservative bias: 2 out of this list (and 2 of the smaller of the bunch)
Mixed bias: 3 out of this list
It's great you see the 'local' news for what it is, but that's just a tiny slice of the issue.
So while I certainly agree that the Sinclair situation where they gobbled up any local news stations is a problem, if your trying to imply that the media as a whole is more a conservative bias than liberal that is preposterous. The overall landscape is indisputably 'left leaning' when it comes to Bias.
As I am sure you are aware, similarly there was recently controversy about George Soros buying a major stake in 227 radio stations in the US, which reach 165 million Americans in the 45 markets they cover -- so roughly half the country in that single investment, and if you limited it to adults it's closer to 82%. That's a pretty large chunk of people to have influence over, and could potentially dwarf the Sinclair issue you highlighted but it is at least in the same realm. (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-soros-fund-buys-400-16...)
TL;DR - I know you think you did something here, but if you zoom out your point is basically moot even if the buyout of local journalism and news broadcasting is abhorrent.
Every single time an extreme right-wing populist runs against any opponent who is _not_ extreme right-wing, the media portrays the election as a "sad reminder of our polarized world". That is absolute bullshit.
Anywhere in the world, the histrionics, the deranged conspiracy theories, the chtonic racialism always come from one side alone, while the other side - which is more often than not garden variety right-wing, mind you - mumbles "let's not do that". But somehow mainstream media successfully portrays this dynamic as "polarization" and "a fight between two extremes".
The DNC has acted so undemocratic it is flabbergasting.
We need a different party comprised of working class Americans who want to take care of the working class and not corporate interests. Reject culture war nonsense and frame this for what it is, a class war. If the response to Luigi wasn’t telling enough, I don’t know. The sentiment is there. Just need to fan the flames.
But the vote count is horrendous. The best this country has ever done in recent memory was Ralph Nader and he was a someone famous that could move the needle....he still only got 2.74% of the vote.
Show up and express literally any opinion about which direction you want your country to develop in, or everyone else will make your choice for you.
Or don't do anything, and stand back smug as people are shipped off to Gitmo for being brown. That's cool too I guess.
(I mean, no, they are not the Single Root Cause - clearly not. They're a part of the causal chain, though. If they had run a solid candidate in any of the last three elections, we wouldn't be here.)
Democratic party supporters need to move away from this dumb groupthink. It is embarrassing, as they like to think they are the better alternative. A better alternative doesn't tell people how to vote; a better alternative earns the vote with vote-worthy candidates.
You're free to be a Trump supporter of course, but if you're not and you're still enabling Trump to win because you don't like the Democrats "enough", your actions aren't aligning with your best interests
If you want to break the cycle, you vote your interests and not fall for this crap.
And no, Trump is not the end of the world. It wasn't last time around the US Democrat leaning desperately pretended it was, nor is it now.
For people who see through the partisan bullshit, change is usually good and it's always interesting to separate those people who have consistent views no matter who is in power and those who change to fit the new partisan narrative, no matter their past positions.
In essence, world and murrica... take a fucking chill pill. The TDS wore off the second time around and bipartisan war machine is red and blue, no matter who.
2. Oh no! Pray god I'm not an active supporter! Imagine if there was someone with "republican/commie/<insert political blacklist> leanings". The horror!
I don't think you guys are getting it.
All you can do is accuse people of "being the enemy" and you just lost a democratic election and keep doubling down.
How about some reflection? How about internal analysis around consistency of political views instead of pure partisanship?
oh, active supporter it is I guess
Sitting it out and letting Trump win (or directly voting for Trump) was your right. You opted to pick "let Trump win". Congrats, he did.
The idea that "people failed the Dems" causes me a lot of anger at this point, because the folks who had the power to prevent this preferred to slip ever rightward in their platform instead of recognizing any number of highly popular non-conservative positions.
People often say "elections have consequences" but they are rarely saying "the democrats need to take this as an objective lesson about how badly they failed to represent their constituencies".
Instead Democratic party apologists go into fantasies about Bernie Bros and Russian Interference, while they materially fail to do literally anything useful about the very real current issues.
The Democrats need to understand that the election was so close that they could have won if they hadn't worked against themselves at the party level at every turn- if they had a primary of any kind they might have won.
I absolutely don't agree that "voting blue" would have fixed this- I think this is the consequence of "voting blue" in 2020 and giving the DNC the idea that they can literally run a piece of toast and win against trump.
I get, to some extent, why they're gun shy on this; centrism feels like it should be compelling with a crazy person on the other end... but I think the party needs to run an AOC style firebrand soon. Time to at least attempt being a bit leftist for once.
In the middle of the Harris campaign, there was a concerted effort by cryptocurrency whales to primary electorally successful Democrats, purely to send a message: "we will absolutely fuck with you if you don't get in line with us". It was up in the air whether or not Harris would even keep Lina Khan on. The Harris campaign blinked so hard their eyes were stuck shut for the rest of the election.
We need an actually progressive party, not just a handful of progressive politicians acting as veneer over the centrist turd that is the DNC. We had that once before with Obama, who was very good at virtue-signalling progress while letting his own party tell him "no" at every juncture. We need to purge the DNC of people who think only about narrowly winning the electoral game so that their machine can perpetuate itself.
To be clear, this doesn't mean purity tests. It means doing shit so obviously good and beneficial for everyone that it makes your opponent's rainbow coalition of fascists second-guess why they're brown-nosing a good candidate for the biblical Antichrist just to get one thing out of him. I happen to be in a family full of Trump bootlickers, and every single one of them wants trust-busting back on the menu. They want right to repair. They want click to cancel. That's shit the Democrats should have been howling from the rooftops. But they didn't, because the Democratic Party does not want it.
Until the DNC can be proud of what they do for the country, instead of ashamed that they didn't loot it hard enough, they will continue to lose to a coalition of the weirdest weirdos America has to offer.
[0] To be clear, in America, "middle class" just means "working class and lying to themselves about it.
It is absurd that all the bad stuff conservatives do ends up being blamed on left and center. But somehow, when left do something bad, conservatives are never blamed.
> the democrats need to take this as an objective lesson about how badly they failed to represent their constituencies
The elections were quite close. They failed to represent moderate republicans who prefer fascists anyway. They lost in elections. But the constituency voting for Trump was not theirs.
It would be cool if anti-Trump right would stop blaming everyone but themeselves. Especially when those anti-Trump people voted for Trump second time.
I agree, but from where I stand to the left, the Democrats -are- the anti-Trump right.
"It should not be responsibility of democrats to become moderate republicans."
I also agree with this, and I think that they would have won if they had not tried to be come GOP-Lite.
"It would be cool if anti-Trump right would stop blaming everyone but themselves. Especially when those anti-Trump people voted for Trump second time."
It'd be cool, from my far-left anti-war, pro-LGBTQ+, anti-capitalist position, if the Democrats would "stop blaming everyone but themselves." Especially when they keep losing because they don't run moderate right-wing candidates who don't represent their constituencies- that's explicitly the reason why they lost, not because a lot of folks voted for DT, but because a big chunk of folks realized that they weren't served by voting for Harris.
The Dems didn't have to run Harris. Or they could have setup a platform to appeal to the folks who ultimately didn't trust her.
But they didn't do those things and they lost an election they could have won.