politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I think we all are at this point. It's been a tough election year for everyone.
I can see how someone would see that. For me, the first thing that stood was how unconventional the candidate really is, even compared to his own, presumably super MAGA, team.
It really does, doesn't it? Of course there's a major contingent that isn't still - ranging from those who are endorsing Harris to folks like Mitt Romney who believe in a post-MAGA GOP.
So, we already know what it would look like. The guy is running for re-election, not for first-time election. The simple answer is that this guy went with folks like Rex Tillerson and John Kelly and H.R. McMaster in the first place because the pro-MAGA crowd, while enthusiastic, didn't have members who could fill in and do these jobs.
Well, certainly not me. SHHHHH, you don't tell him either!!!
Except they were already going to turn out for him no matter what happened. So he didn't need to do that to convince them to get on board - he would have been better off listening to his more traditional advisors and keeping himself restrained to maintain the broadest possible coalition.
.. and vote for the other candidate (Harris).
Yep, fortunately, he couldn't do he couldn't restraint himself, and hopefully not only the US but the whole world benefits when he loses - exactly for the reasons you state above.
Spoiler alert: This won't happen. At least not right away. This isn't the first time - what we saw back in Jan 2021, we have every reason to expect again, and zero reasons not to.
Sadly, I am seeing on the news that this may already be happening this election, regardless.
So the point of the article, or at least the claim they are trying to make, is to state that the MAGA candidate was doing really well prior to these dog whistles, and at least some folks on his campaign along with some senior traditional Republican strategists attributed it to him having appeared reasonable and not crazy. Then afterwards, the dog whistles ruined things moments before reaching the finish line.
Again, the article is claiming he did have a choice - and that he would have been better off not taking this late-minute route. As I wrote earlier this also seems to be backed up somewhat by the polling.
Of course, just because the article claims something doesn't mean they're right. A healthy dose of skepticism is reasonable and in this case, warranted. But at least parts of it seem plausible, based on what we know from living under him after he took office in 2017, along with the recent changes happening in the polls for 2024.
Same here. Remember he lost the popular vote in 2016? So yes, the majority was likely already sick of him back them. And then he lost it by a larger margin in 2020.
I doubt he'd be running in 2028. He'd be older than Biden is now (who is already the oldest US President ever I think), and he'll likely be incarcerated then too if he's lost. (Remember, he's already been convicted of federal crimes, he is just awaiting sentencing - I think November 26 was one expected date).