this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024

344 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2516 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.

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

Example:

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. 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.
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]

344

Trump rolls out bonkers Harris plane conspiracy—but photographer disproves it (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former President Donald Trump continued his obsession with crowd size on Sunday, claiming photos that showed a large crowd outside Vice President Kamala Harris’ Detroit rally last week were AI-generated. But one photographer who was in attendance confirmed to the Daily Beast that the images his camera captured were very real.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 182 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The sad thing for him is that he is Streisand Effecting her crowd size. I had multiple posts on my Facebook feed of the picture where they circled the body of the plane and the engine claiming there’s no people in the reflection, so the crowd size is fake. I stumbled onto a Snopes post of a link to a video of the actual event as proof that the photo is authentic. I watched the video, and the camera showed not only the crowd that was displayed in the picture, but it began to pull back away from the plane. The crowd just kept on going and going and going and going and going! I couldn’t believe the number of people!

So where I would have never seen a pic of a group of people waiting by her plane, now I’ve seen a group that was multiple times as large as what was in the picture, and I’m beginning to realize what a movement she has going. Thank DJT!

[–] [email protected] 70 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The crowd just kept on going and going and going and going and going! I couldn’t believe the number of people!

Any chance the Dems will learn from Obama and Harris that younger and energetic candidates that stand firm will energize voters and increase turnout?

Yes, I am assuming Harris will pull in the numbers in November because she is currently doing things overwhelmingly right on the campaign trail. Not perfect, but overall really, really well.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago

Any chance the Dems will learn from Obama and Harris that younger and energetic candidates that stand firm will energize voters and increase turnout?

Best I can do is a bunch of DC consultants whose clients are all 120 years old who will say naw this is a one-off.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any chance the Dems will learn from Obama and Harris that younger and energetic candidates that stand firm will energize voters and increase turnout?

Seeing as they're rolling out Bill and fucking Hillary Clinton as speakers at the DNC to follow the already unavoidable speech by historically unpopular Biden my guess would be no.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biden is the current president. Bill and Hillary Clinton are both still immensely popular. There's absolutely nothing wrong with showing them throw their support to Harris.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The emphasis was mostly on Hillary, who ended up historically unpopular back in 2016.^[1] In fact books ^[2] have been written on the subject of why Clinton is so hated.

Biden - as president - is an unavoidable speaker and I said as much. I'll give you Bill is fairly popular, despite being associated with establishment democrats.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Umm, she won the popular vote. Everyone's well aware that conservatives hate her, and enough independents in enough swing states hated her to deny her the presidency, but that doesn't mean that she's an overall unpopular figure.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Every Democrat I know that voted for her, including myself, fucking hated her as a nominee. Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is popular? That's like, demonstrably false

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (30 children)

According to the primaries she was. In fact, according to the primaries she was nearly in the general for 2008. What's your data for demonstrably false? Certainly something more concrete than "me and my pals weren't pleased."

load more comments (29 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Those independent votes are as important this election as they were in 2016, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's absolutely true, of course. But that doesn't mean showing unity between old-guard, establishment Democrats and more progressive factions will be a bad thing. For one, Clinton's image has improved substantially compared to the orange turd. For another, this will definitely be seen as a positive, passing-of-the-torch kind of deal.

In fact, I'm leaning towards the opinion that denying the Clintons opportunities to speak in support of Harris would have been seen as divisive at a time when optimism and unity are driving her campaign. And independents definitely like to see optimism and unity.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For one, Clinton's image has improved substantially

Not trying to be combative here but do you have any sources? It's been hard finding recent data, but in 2018 her favorability was still very low. ^[1] The best I can find is 19% (compared to Harris 29%) backing Hillary as nominee should Biden drop out back in February. ^[2]

I can see your arguments, but I'm also wary of halting the momentum of the campaign, which has somehow managed to position itself as new and fresh and unburdened by what has been (establishment democrats).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No worries, I'll never be upset by requests for citations. Those are always legitimate to ask for.

According to YouGov, her current popularity is 42%, her "Disliked By" rating is 38%, and 18% feel neutral about her. I'd assume those numbers shift when looking only at Democrats and independents, but regardless, it's quite a distance from her 2018 favorability ratings. Source: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Hillary_Clinton

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's impressive I guess that she's clawed back to barely favourable, I'll give her that. However, I don't think you can think about only her appeal to other democrats. The DNC doesn't exist in a vacuum. The republicans have a vast array of old Hillary attack angles ready to go, and footage of Harris and Hillary together puts all of those back in play. Trump and his cronies can and will use them all in hopes of swaying independents and undecideds who still dislike Clinton. It's a vulnerability I don't think the campaign needs in exchange for dubious gains.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's important to remember this is just a speech, not an invitation for the Clintons back into the White House. I trust the Harris team to have thought this through.

And it occurs to me they have an obvious response: "Why are you campaigning against Hillary Clinton? That's a weird thing to do, she's not running."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

this is just a speech, not an invitation for the Clintons back into the White House

Politics has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with optics - if it wasn't already known since before, then the Trump win in 2016 definitively proved it. Maybe I'm overly cautious though, I just am wary of opening actual angles of attack. Right now Trump's side has nothing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So historically unpopular that she got more votes than the guy who "won" the election?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Dems held their nose and voted for her to try to avoid trump. She is historically unpopular.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Fair enough, I should have considered that!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I'm hoping that they take a swing at all 50 states plus DC. Dean may be known primarily for his scream, but his 50 State Strategy was a good idea.

[–] [email protected] 81 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Like the very real photos he took with his black supporters?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit, it's just constant projection with the GOP. Even on the stupidest shit, projection.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

Every accusation is a confession

[–] [email protected] 55 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you wanted to fake an image, you definitely wouldn't be using AI, especially for something as in easy as crowds.

But, of course, you wouldn't be doing photomanipulation for anything many people were actually there to witness with their eyeballs.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Remember when Adolf was in his bunker moving mythical military units on a map?

Same thing.

The man distanced himself from reality and has now fallen off a cliff. It does no good trying to convince anyone, just watch the lemmings that follow him.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

reminds me of some sharpie incident

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago

I still don't know which is more unbelievable to me - that it happened in the first place or that he's still a toss-up for the presidency despite having pulled that stunt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What was that again?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

He tried to claim he'd been right about the path of a hurricane... by doctoring a weather prediction map from the National Weather Service with a sharpie.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah now I remember! 😂 God damn what an unbelievable moron the guy is... I can't even comprehend.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

This is also one reason project 2025 wants to eliminate NOAA. That and the whole bit about NOAA along with NASA providing direct scientific evidence of global warming that goes directly against the interests of the fossil fuel industry. I mean... clearly the latter is the lion's share, but Trump's pettiness knows no bounds when they wouldn't [fully] play ball and affirm lies he told about the storm... https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/media/hurricane-dorian-donald-trump-reliable-sources/index.html

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Wish I could get this bug in the Harris campaign's collective ear:

They should be running 24/7 TV spots in Florida outlining moves have the GOP has done, and wishes to do, to defund NOAA. We live and die by that reporting in hurricane season.

No need bring up shit Republicans don't believe in like global warming or stronger and more numerous hurricanes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Another reason they want to eliminate NOAA is because they provide weather info for free. Without NOAA we'd end up paying for our weather reports from private companies.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The former "leader of the free world"

Have are we not up in arms in this timeline? Figuratively, that is. It would be good to avoid armed conflict, but why the fuck are we allowing lying moronic assholes in positions of power?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because really stupid morons think he's smart business man despite all evidence in front of them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

But really stupid morons can't be the majority, surely.

So there's something going on with the average intelligent as well.

Perhaps it's because the majority isn't as loud and obnoxious as the moronic minority?

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 months ago

Nothing but projection. Trump and his cronies do that -> Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images. I'm pretty sure that there are way more examples, I just don't feel like spending any time on this moron and his lies. Honestly, why is it still necessary to debunk anything Trump says? It's a rare exception when he says something that isn't made up.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

If he is talking about modified pics he will soon be talking about those awful fabricated videos the ruzzians have produced of him in Moscow.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Nah, he will just outright deny reality like he has his entire life including lying about his crowd sizes since 2016.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Or, how the AI/media has removed people from his rallies.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Mans is completely fucked.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Video: https://x.com/yashar/status/1822671783713202393

Wait for the pullback at the end. Idk shit about estimating crowd size but it's big as hell

load more comments