Abortion: Isn’t Hitler
Immigration: Isn’t Hitler
More: Isn’t Hitler
I mean… sure, please, continue. I’m not tryin to be snarky while you’re in the middle of informing the electorate. But also, one could very sincerely argue that saying literally anything without also offering the context that she isn’t Hitler and that’s all that really matters… is failing to inform the electorate, to at least a certain significant extent.
You’re not going to win any additional voters with the “Isn’t Hitler” defense. Don’t get me wrong I think the comparison is an apt one, but all a Trump or undecided voters sees is “not Trump” which gives Trump the ability to hold any position or value, even when that position or value is a completely fabricated lie.
Be clear, Kamala is pro-choice, a value which most Americans agree with. Be clear she holds the belief that most Americans already hold. Codified Roe v Wade.
I am saying that the New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers by giving this kabuki theater presentation of this as a normal election between candidates that need to be evaluated on their merits and policies and etc.
I’m not saying anything from a standpoint of strategizing winning the election, although yes I would hope that a clearer understanding of what’s at stake would lead people to support Harris more than they otherwise would. I’m just talking about journalistic standards; some of the things NYT reporters have said and written show an absolutely unhinged level of normalization of Trump and a pretense that his second presidency would be a normal American presidency, and we need to be treating this election in that light.
That’s more what I’m complaining about. It’s like judging the wolf invading your house on its merits against the show dog that is your current pet, and potentially we may want to adopt this thing instead, depending on how fit the show dog is in terms of the coat and the bearing and etc, and comparing the two.
Abortion: Isn’t Hitler
Immigration: Isn’t Hitler
More: Isn’t Hitler
I mean… sure, please, continue. I’m not tryin to be snarky while you’re in the middle of informing the electorate. But also, one could very sincerely argue that saying literally anything without also offering the context that she isn’t Hitler and that’s all that really matters… is failing to inform the electorate, to at least a certain significant extent.
You’re not going to win any additional voters with the “Isn’t Hitler” defense. Don’t get me wrong I think the comparison is an apt one, but all a Trump or undecided voters sees is “not Trump” which gives Trump the ability to hold any position or value, even when that position or value is a completely fabricated lie.
Be clear, Kamala is pro-choice, a value which most Americans agree with. Be clear she holds the belief that most Americans already hold. Codified Roe v Wade.
This extends to any current/future candidate.
I am saying that the New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers by giving this kabuki theater presentation of this as a normal election between candidates that need to be evaluated on their merits and policies and etc.
I’m not saying anything from a standpoint of strategizing winning the election, although yes I would hope that a clearer understanding of what’s at stake would lead people to support Harris more than they otherwise would. I’m just talking about journalistic standards; some of the things NYT reporters have said and written show an absolutely unhinged level of normalization of Trump and a pretense that his second presidency would be a normal American presidency, and we need to be treating this election in that light.
That’s more what I’m complaining about. It’s like judging the wolf invading your house on its merits against the show dog that is your current pet, and potentially we may want to adopt this thing instead, depending on how fit the show dog is in terms of the coat and the bearing and etc, and comparing the two.
Article was more informative than “isn’t Hitler.” I don’t understand this comment.
I explained it a little more here
I understand now having read your linked comment
They do mention January 6th in the article