I have been following the run-up to the US 2024 election, and while this is the first election cycle I've properly kept up with, the state of the political discourse from both sides is saddening and kinda pathetic. From what I've seen, there is very little talk on actual concrete policies (apart from vague claims without any details on how they are going to be enacted). Instead, the candidates and their supporters spend most of their time trying to discredit their opponent - and not just politically, with their childish nicknames, insults, and ad hominem attacks. They talk about their golfing abilities and crowd sizes instead of how exactly they plan to improve the country. Even when the candidates talk about the other's plans and policies, it feels like both are trying to paint the picture that the other candidate is an existential threat to the country.
Sure, they might vehemently disagree with each other on fundamental issues, but that doesn't mean they can't have a respectful conversation/debate on policies without having to resort to these measures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels like for many people, this election has been reduced to choosing between the least worst candidate, in order to stop the other one.
Has american politics always been like this? And if not, what led to it becoming what it is now? And is either candidate actually right about the threat the other poses to the country?
No, it was not always like this a certain former President warned about this at his end term.
Again, guess... Money talks.
I love your mindset, kudos.
It has not always been like that. I distinctly remember Gore and Bush focusing on each other's policies and the effect they would have on the country (giving us such memorable terms as "fuzzy math"). Even when the party mostly ran on vitriol, it was considered important for the politicians themselves to project respectability.
I expect we'll get back to that in a few more cycles. Shock value has a short shelf life.
It would be better had we soviets- small expert groups elected upon understanding, not dislike.
It is easy to sway the masses, but hard to provide wonder medicines (noone is dumb, any solution has flaws).
Whatever the case, we should make power deriving from ability and care for the future, not popular vote.
May a monarchy be as fragile as the imperialist era shows, these rulers actually care about their grandchildren's throne. If we could have a constitutional monarchy, giving any majority of citizens the power to veto the king (as to avoid a Charles I. or Wilhelm II.) , I think it would be in the best interest for the generations after us.
It wasn't like this until Obamas term, then suddenly republicans started going psycho with deliberate lies about him and poisoned the narrative.
The attempted impeachment of Clinton was a prelude to this.
It started since the merge of big corp and government, as such it was Nixon that detached money value from gold and that was the start.
I hope no one brings ABORTIONNNNNNNNNNNN RIGHTSSSS
I still don't realize why is it such a big thing!
@CalbernandHowbe said in #1:
>Instead, the candidates and their supporters spend most of their time trying to discredit their opponent - and not just politically, with their childish nicknames, insults, and ad hominem attacks.
Do you count racism in ad hominem? Because, partly, I'm surprised Trump gets away with it.
>They talk about their golfing abilities
Trump's private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey is from where he gives his speech, like "I think grocery prices should be dropped. Elect me, I'll make sure that happens! Then he goes on to give a list of grocery items like butter xD
Credits to my knowledge -
The WSJ Podcast
it was like this in the early 1200s than changed in 1600s and than Obama Huseyn was the first black president of the USA and than people went nutts
Can we be honest and say it is overwhelmingly coming from one side? This isn't a "both sides" issue. The person who calls others childish nicknames, is Trump. The person who talks about crowd sizes, is Trump. The person who rambles incoherently and personally attacks his opponents, is Trump. Where do you see a "both sides" on this issue?
And while I do understand that detailed policies have not been announced on the democratic side, I think its mostly because Kamala only really announced her formal candidacy about two weeks ago or so. But historically the democrats do provide clear policy goals and reasons for how they intend to achieve those goals. Hopefully in the coming weeks and months they'll have clarified their policy goals enough to release a formal platform.
