this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024

71 points (96.1% liked)

politics

18870 readers

3867 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

'I'll be voting no.' Trump clarifies his stance on the abortion amendment in Florida (www.npr.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I actually really hate NPR for this article because they waffled so much.

After confusion over his stance on abortion rights, former President Donald Trump is clearing things up.

His stance was not confusing and was abundantly clear, as they state later in the article:

On Thursday, Trump indicated he would vote in favor of abortion rights in his home state of Florida, where it is on the ballot. Saying he thinks the "six week [ban] is too short," he said he favored "more time."

When asked explicitly, "so you'll vote in favor of the amendment?", Trump seemed to affirm that he would.

"I'm going to be voting that we need more than six weeks," he told NBC News in an interview, before saying he favored exceptions in abortion law for the life of the mother, rape and incest.

They don't even give that part straight. Saying he "indicated" makes it sound like there was some wiggle room, or miscommunication, possibly on the part of the reader/listener. There wasn't. He plainly said in no uncertain terms that he was voting for the amendment. Then his campaign said WAIT NO DON'T SAY THAT because they think it's a dumb move given his base. So he reversed his position.

He didn't "clarify" shit. He said one thing and within a DAY he said the exact opposite.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I hate that they let Trump flip flop on pretty much any issue, while holding everyone else (rightly) to account for stuff like that. Just because everything he says is basically an unintelligible word salad.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago

It's not just can't flip flop, they are held to their word for decades, while trump's words seem to last about 5 minutes.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's also because they can't run headline after headline with "Trump lied" and expect to get clicks. News has become an engagement farm where in the past newspapers and other media were less, well, engaging.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, that's definitely part of the problem, although some of it has to do with both sidesing everything in the name is neutrality. If 99% of scientists say climate change is happening and there's like one scientist who's clearly on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry, your job is to expose those links, not to give both sides equal time.

They're treating the Republican party like a normal party that acts in good faith, and they haven't been like that since Nixon.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago

Politico: “Harris fails to answer for Trump’s frequent flip flops.”

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But he’s a convicted felon, so how is he going to vote? 🧐

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

In NY, and FL goes by the state of the conviction for voter eligibility.

The issue isn't that he is a felon, but that he didn't report in after conviction. However, the argument will be that he hasn't been sentenced yet, because FL will definitely find wiggle room for Trump.