However, it got off to a less than stellar start. The three moderate candidates in the race – Jill Stein, Cornel West and Chase Oliver – were barred from participating.
Instead, the contest pitted the two frontrunners: former President Donald Trump, the candidate of the far-white Republican Party, widely thought to be the political wing of white-Christianist militias, and Kamala Harris, the current vice president, who led a palace coup two months ago that forced the ageing, unpopular incumbent, President Joe Biden, to abandon his quest for re-election.
the session at times degenerated into name-calling, fearmongering and outright lying. The two candidates traded insults, incited anti-China sentiment, differed over women’s rights and whether the country is facing an invasion by hordes of violent, pet-eating criminal immigrants, and agreed on backing the genocidal regime in Israel. There was little articulation by either candidate of a coherent vision for the country.
That’s exactly how the world saw this, spot on mate 😂 I think they need to look up the definition of “debate”
Point of order, Kamala didn’t “lead” anything, she was chosen by party insiders of the clinton wing to take over.
Also Aljazeera has always been highly critical of the US, I started reading them fairly regularly in the mid 2000’s as they were one of the only outlets criticizing Bush. (I don’t think the intercept existed yet.)
The debate is literally an agreement between Donald trump and kamala Harris. There is no neutral debate commission involved. This doesn’t really make sense.
Those candidates are free to have their own debate if they think they can convince someone to put them on TV.
But there is no public debate commission, and no public funding going to these debates. It’s two campaigns making a deal with a private TV network to show them on TV arguing with each other. Should there be a public debate commission? And if there were, would it be appropriate to feature more candidates? Maybe! But as is, the only real issue is that the vast majority of the public does not care about these candidates.
Trump’s mass deportation and ‘poisoning the blood of our nation’ rhetoric is literally Hitlerian. Nazi as a term is not being watered down here.
I wouldn’t consider Harris a Nazi though, just another Neo liberal. Although the Democrats shift on the border, conceding to the republican narrative, and the current stance on Israel/Palestine is still concerning
My issue wasn’t with calling Trump a Nazi (I find that assessment correct), but calling them both Nazis. Yes, the rightward shift is concerning, but the false equivalence put up here understates Trump’s danger and heavily overstates Harris’s.
Yeah that’s fair, I agree. I think it’s important to highlight the rachet effect when it comes to Democrats, especially on harmful policies like immigration and foreign policy, but it’s also important to recognize the difference between them and the Republicans. The only avenue for progressive change is with the Democratic Party, but only with enough voters demanding better representation
Auschwitz was in Poland. They were careful to keep all the concentration camps out of Germany
The six extermination camps where 2.7 million of their victims were murdered were all in Poland, but the Nazis did have hundreds (or dozens, if you count all of the subcamps near a larger one as being a single camp) of concentration camps in Germany.
When did Aljazeera get this 🔥
That’s exactly how the world saw this, spot on mate 😂 I think they need to look up the definition of “debate”
Point of order, Kamala didn’t “lead” anything, she was chosen by party insiders of the clinton wing to take over.
Also Aljazeera has always been highly critical of the US, I started reading them fairly regularly in the mid 2000’s as they were one of the only outlets criticizing Bush. (I don’t think the intercept existed yet.)
IIRC, the Intercept started during the first Obama term.
The debate is literally an agreement between Donald trump and kamala Harris. There is no neutral debate commission involved. This doesn’t really make sense.
Those candidates are free to have their own debate if they think they can convince someone to put them on TV.
Edit: Also is Jill Stein a “moderate”?
I think the point he’s trying to make here is about the undemocratic nature of the election system, in which only the two frontrunners have a chance.
But there is no public debate commission, and no public funding going to these debates. It’s two campaigns making a deal with a private TV network to show them on TV arguing with each other. Should there be a public debate commission? And if there were, would it be appropriate to feature more candidates? Maybe! But as is, the only real issue is that the vast majority of the public does not care about these candidates.
Closer than the two nazis we get to pick from
God, I despise the watering down of the term “nazi”.
Trump’s mass deportation and ‘poisoning the blood of our nation’ rhetoric is literally Hitlerian. Nazi as a term is not being watered down here.
I wouldn’t consider Harris a Nazi though, just another Neo liberal. Although the Democrats shift on the border, conceding to the republican narrative, and the current stance on Israel/Palestine is still concerning
My issue wasn’t with calling Trump a Nazi (I find that assessment correct), but calling them both Nazis. Yes, the rightward shift is concerning, but the false equivalence put up here understates Trump’s danger and heavily overstates Harris’s.
I think you accidentally double posted.
Yeah that’s fair, I agree. I think it’s important to highlight the rachet effect when it comes to Democrats, especially on harmful policies like immigration and foreign policy, but it’s also important to recognize the difference between them and the Republicans. The only avenue for progressive change is with the Democratic Party, but only with enough voters demanding better representation
re. Double posting, I think that was Jerboa being fucky when I posted my reply
heckin internet making me look silly
deleted by creator
Am I watering down the word nazi or are you watering down the crime of genocide?
Do you have a better term to describe people supporting the systematic murder and ethnic cleansing of people trapped in a concentration camp?
Nazi is the most accurate term to describe Harris and Trump.
Nazism has to come from the Auschwitz region of Germany or else it’s just sparkling fascism
I get the joke but Auschwitz was in Poland. They were careful to keep all the concentration camps out of Germany.
The six extermination camps where 2.7 million of their victims were murdered were all in Poland, but the Nazis did have hundreds (or dozens, if you count all of the subcamps near a larger one as being a single camp) of concentration camps in Germany.
Fair point.
branding is important, yo!
deleted by creator
The fact that this comment is getting upvoted is why I fucking hate this place.
Then why are you here?
Go watch an ideologically flattering super hero movie