You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
293 points

Published July 1st.

Presidential historian Allan Lichtman took aim at CNN’s News Central hosts Monday morning for being “complicit” in Donald Trump’s political rise amid the presumptive Republican nominee’s bid for a second term.

Lichtman, appearing with hosts John Berman and Sara Sidner, shifted gears during his comments about recent polls between Trump and Democratic incumbent Joe Biden.

He believes Trump’s remarks during last week’s debate should have grabbed more headlines than Biden’s much-discussed struggles.

“I love you guys in the media, but I have to say, you are complicit in Donald Trump lying and conning his way to the presidency. All of the attention has been on Biden’s faltering debate, but Donald Trump’s debate was vastly worse,” Lichtman said. "It was based entirely on lies. More than 30 significant lies.

“He threatened our democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept the results of a fair election. That he would seek retribution. Why wasn’t that the headlines? Why wasn’t that the greatest concern from the debate, rather than all of the focus on Joe Biden.”

In his rebuke of the media’s coverage of Trump, he continued:

“There’s an old saying, it’s not just the evil people who wreak havoc on the world, it’s the good people who don’t do enough to stop them. And the media right now is complicit in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency and threatening our democracy,” Lichtman added.

permalink
report
reply
252 points

I feel so fucking vindicated right now that a presidential historian is saying the same exact thing I’ve been saying. Trump’s “performance” was horrifying and nobody said a word. Its infuriating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-193 points
*

You must only care about the horse race aspect of the election then.

There are people who don’t see “beat the other guy no matter what” as the aim of our great political project.

The aim of our great political project is “Lets work together to create a world worth living in, a world of broadly shared prosperity, a world with the infrastructure that is the envy of the world, a world where housing is a human right, and so are healthcare (including in the rural areas), retirement, food, education and transportation. Let’s work together to explore space and to discover new science. A world that’s unpolluted. A world where being poor is not a slow motion death sentence. A world where everyone is in a position to build some savings instead of living paycheck to paycheck. A world of internet connectivity as a human right, including in the most rural area. A world of net neutrality. A world of limited copyrights and limited patents. A world void of monopolies as a matter of principle. A world of personal bodily autonomy. A world where privacy is protected for most people but where the superrich have transparency requirements because they can greatly affect our wellbeing with a stroke of a pen. A world with a wealth ceiling and no billionaires.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
94 points
*

No shit dude. You need to focus on the present first, though, so that we can continue to work towards that future you speak of. Because right now, the authoritarians threatening to make that future inaccessible are more relevant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

One option, and that’s a possibility.

The other, and that possibility disappears.

The fact that you don’t recognize that is, to me,a huge problem for the upcoming election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

What? Take out Biden completely. Remove his parts from the debate. Every single one of Trump’s non-answers were antidemocratic. He was racist, what are "black jobs’, Mr Trump? He was disconnected, talking about murder and rape crisis that dont exist. He was unhinged, and sounded like he lived in a different universe. There was nothing constructive or attractive about his remarks. You can’t build America with them. None of those ideals belong in a egalitarian democracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

The aim of our great political project is "Lets work together to create a world worth living in,

That’s all fine and dandy in theory when assuming good faith from all parts of the project.

In reality, though, one of the two major US parties is literally a fascist party now. By definition, fascists don’t argue or negotiate in good faith. Furthermore, their goals are so horrid that compromising towards them at all is inevitably a worse concession than reasonably acceptable.

A lot of the reason why it got this far and continues to get even worse is the Dem party insisting that “bipartisanship” is the highest political virtue of all. No matter what you’re giving up.

a world of broadly shared prosperity, a world with the infrastructure that is the envy of the world, a world where housing is a human right, and so are healthcare (including in the rural areas), retirement, food, education and transportation

That the Dems almost always fail to move society in that direction is in large part BECAUSE they insist on cooperation with people who are pathologically opposed to honest good faith cooperatiLet’s work together to explore space and to discover new science. A world that’s unpolluted. A world where being poor is not a slow motion death sentence. A world where everyone is in a position to build some savings instead of living paycheck to paycheck. A world of internet connectivity as a human right, including in the most rural area. A world of net neutrality. A world of limited copyrights and limited patents. A world void of monopolies as a matter of principle. A world of personal bodily autonomy. A world where privacy is protected for most people but where the superrich have transparency requirements because they can greatly affect our wellbeing with a stroke of a pen. A world with a wealth ceiling and no billionaires."

All good ideas. And all impossible to achieve through cooperation with fascists.

Not only do they by definition argue in bad faith. They’re also ideologically opposed to ALL of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

There are people who don’t see “beat the other guy no matter what” as the aim of our great political project.

If the neofascist movement captures America the ‘great political project’ will be over. End of story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Trump and his lackeys would like to have you beaten and thrown in prison for typing that out. Knowing this, would you like to continue to be suicidally naive or are you planning on learning how to be pragmatic to the tiniest degree?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

And your solution is…?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You understand the other guy will invariably KILL that project? If you really care about it, beating him at all costs is what you should be doing

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

If that was the aim, it wouldn’t be a “two” party system. That is clearly not the current purpose of the US government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
*

The man has continuously been given visibility and a platform for the past 4 years to whine and carry on about a stolen election that wasn’t and the failings of America that aren’t. Ask yourself, was the same thing done for Obama? Bush? Clinton? Bush Sr.? Certainly not… What about Romney? Perot? McCain? Hillary? Gore? Dole? Why not?

Why is this fellonious, mutant Cheeto still being given a voice and opportunity to continue to influence American history? Whether it’s for ratings or for some ulterior agenda, we’ll probably never know. Shame on all of them, either way. I’m sure it all comes down to money, but whatever it is, it’s disgusting…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s rampant capitalism manifesting - that’s what led to focusing on a conman’s rise to candidacy with no credibility to his name. That’s how I see it.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 9.9K

    Posts

  • 163K

    Comments