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
I generally give Republicans more benefit of the doubt than most. I consider myself a liberal libertarian with an open mind to all things. I think there were plenty of valid reasons to vote for Trump the first time around, reasons that much of the country chose to ignore because it was easier than addressing them.
If the GOP nominates Trump again, they deserve to lose as hardcore as possible. I didn't scream and cry when he was elected because I was willing to give him a chance and an open mind. But I think his first term said everything that needed to be said about his suitability as a leader. He talked a big talk of draining the swamp, but then filled his cabinet with alligators and no swamps were drained. If anything, swamps were created as he filled key positions with corrupt people who were loyal to him but had little experience or skill for the job at hand.
Love his policies or hate them, that's just corrupt bad government. And while I don't always agree with Biden's policies, much like Obama, he at least executes the duties of his office in a relatively competent manner.
Same thing if DeSantis gets the nomination. You can't run a platform of jobs creation when you pick a hissy fit with your state's largest employer because they dare voice some mild opposition to a policy of yours (especially when said opposition is essential for said company to maintain credibility on the national level). That speaks volumes about the kind of person, and the kind of leader, that you are. I would rather have someone who's policies I sometimes disagree with, then a childishly vindictive psychophant sitting in the big chair.
Sadly, this all is the very predictable result of the Karl Rove strategy- whip up social conservatives and evangelicals to drum up votes. The result is those groups now have significant power within the GOP, even though their platform of intolerant policies is unappealing to the broader nation to the point of making them unelectable in the eyes of many.
If you knew anything about Trump you would not have thought this.
Nuance is a thing.
I said there were plenty of valid reasons to vote for Trump. For example, if you wanted American manufacturing, the idea of a tariff on Chinese goods was appealing. If you favor border security he was your guy. If you favor gun rights Hillary sure as fuck wasn't for you. Etc etc.
And overall- Hillary was a very 'middle of the road status quo' candidate and the nation wanted real reform. Trump represented change- perhaps not good change, but change.
Not arguing the merits of any of those points. Just saying if you want those things, his platform was the more appealing one.
Following him would reveal plenty of good reasons NOT to vote for him also. Dishonesty, misogyny/sexual harassment, tax evasion, borderline racism, and a lot of his rhetoric felt a little too close to Hitler's for my taste.
Personally I didn't vote for him- I voted 3rd party (in my solid blue state of CT, my vote doesn't matter either way). But I could understand why people did, and I had hopes- I hoped that either when he won the primary or the general the 'yuuuge!' personality would go away and the intelligence a lot of people claim he has would emerge, and we'd be left with, if not a true statesman, someone approaching a mature adult who would get to work solving the nation's challenges.
As it stands, what we got was pretty close to what his critics had claimed would happen- a Presidency full of scandals and corruption, with his own loyalists placed in key positions they were wholly unqualified for. And from what I've read, it was widely known in foreign intelligence circles that if you wanted him on your side, just book a few million bucks worth of boondoggles at mar-a-lago and kiss his ass a few times and he'd be your buddy. Obviously not what we need in a President.
But that's all my point. Going into it, there were valid reasons for wanting him. Now, there may still be desirable items on his agenda, but he's proven himself ineffective at implementing any of those items. So now, this time round, I'd say if you vote for him (especially in the primary) you're a moron because you're putting forward someone Biden's almost certainly gonna crush, who was disappointing the first time around and arguably treasonous.
What I mean is Trump is a known liar and conman. Anyone who knew anything about Trump knew he was lying out of his ass, and wouldn't do anything he promised.
Honestly part of the reason I gave him benefit of doubt is a few conversations I had with someone who worked extensively on a real estate project with Trump They said Trump did some slightly underhanded shit that screwed some people over, but it was obvious he had a very sharp mind and was thinking far ahead of anyone else at the table; that the 'yuuge' personality was a smokescreen to look stupid so people didn't realize how truly sharp he was. The person I spoke with lost some opportunities as a result of Trump's underhanded operations, but ended up with strong respect for the guy as a businessman and a leader. The person felt that if Trump used his capabilities on behalf of the nation, we'd all benefit.
I was hoping we'd see in the White House some glimmer of what the person I spoke with saw in the real estate deal. Unfortunately we did not. Or if we did, it was only in service of Trump, not in service of the nation.
And while Trump may be a known liar and a conman, when the opponent is quoted as saying you have to have a public and a private position on issues (in other words, lie and tell people what they want to hear) it's hard to worry too much.
Had Biden been the nominee he'd almost certainly have beaten Trump. Or Bernie, he'd have done well.
So the guy gets fucked over by Trump, and thinks that's a good quality? He's an idiot.
Step past your hatred of the guy and look for some nuance my friend.
The person I spoke with didn't like Trump, but admired Trump's sharp mind and strategic brain that could out-think a lot of very smart people. Their belief was that Trump is sharp as a tack but just pretends to be an idiot so people underestimate him.
Being the smartest guy in the room, being able to come to a negotiation and sweep the board when nobody sees it coming is never a bad quality for a President. THAT is what they respected-- the ability to do that to a bunch of very smart people.
That's called being a narcissistic conman, and is not a sign of intelligence, only a sign of lack of empathy and morals.
The fact he got taken in makes him an idiot.
Well there were a table full of people saying 'we know Trump can be slimy so we'll protect ourselves' and it wasn't good enough. So I guess they're all idiots.
I think it's fair to argue that if you know Trump has a reputation for screwing everybody over, the only non-idiotic move is to stay the fuck away from him. So that's probably fair grounds for calling them idiots.
That Trump chose to screw everybody over makes him a narcissistic conman without empathy or morals.
The fact that he COULD do it, even to smart people who were expecting it and thought they'd prepared, is arguably a sign of intelligence.
That he chooses to use whatever intelligence he has screwing everybody over rather than solving real problems-- that's back to narcissistic conman without empathy or morals.
You can be a narcissistic conman without empathy or morals, and still be smart.
So the guy sees Trump do some underhanded stuff to screw people over and thought “that’s what I want to lead my country”
Trumps genius is in his ability to sell himself. The guy got bamboozled by a known fraud, conman, and narcissist.
It's not like he came out of nowhere, his bombastic dishonesty was no secret, and he made it crystal clear during the campaign that he had nothing to do with honesty and truth.
While I hoped he would change his tune when he became president, and held out hope there, it should have come to zero surprise that he is who has always been and giving him the "benefit of the doubt" was being extremely generous, if not outright naive.
Don't disagree with any of that.
The person I spoke with was so impressed because he (and the others in the deal) were specifically protecting themselves against any Trump shenanigans, but the way Trump changed the whole plan showed he was thinking many steps ahead of them.
But he turned out to be a one trick pony- his trick is screwing over everybody (perhaps in very clever ways) to boost his own power and wealth. The whole selfless part where he does it for the good of the nation, that never happened.
Anyone giving Trump any sort of benefit of the doubt even in 2016 could only generously be described as extremely ignorant. Trump had even at the time an extremely proven track record, and all of us proclaiming doom and gloom if he got elected were proven right over and over. The only surprise from any of this is that he didn't start a war and instead just managed to create enough instability to lead us where we are now with Israel/Palestine and especially Russia/Ukraine. Like, there was a lot of us telling everyone exactly what was going to happen in 2016, whether that was Roe, the racist immigration shit, the threat of a pandemic, the growing wealth inequality, his ability to handle something like Hurricane Maria, etc. We knew he was a rapist then. We knew he was a conman then. He had already mocked the disabled, military families, called hispanics murderers, rapists and drug dealers. He already and still maintained the Central Park Five, who'd long been exonerated, should have been put to death. Fuck's sake the only reason he started running basically was because he got a lot of attention for the birther bullshit which tbh wasn't even a dog whistle and he might have just as well had a klan hood on during that whole thing.
I'm not sure if it's more an indictment of the media, the education system, or just Republicans working for generations to do exactly what they have that literally anyone could give him the benefit of the doubt.
Even in this very thread, we're doing their work for them. Biden's been a fairly successful president by most normal metrics, and the only thing the media (and half of this thread) want to talk about is that he's old. Meanwhile, Trump is actually, routinely now showing that he's losing his faculties and he's a spry 3 years younger with the diet of a frat party at 2am and the exercise regimen of a russet potato, but yes, let's really dissect if Biden's putting out an international fire fast enough as if the alternative in Trump wouldn't be literally to throw matches and gas at the problem.
To drive your point home, and I'm not sure if it was here or another thread, but a guy was effectively defending "muh both side”-ing this because democrats hadn't passed universal health care. Lol it's insane that this is the discourse now.
Exactly. Democrats are expected to be adults, while Republicans are treated like toddler's that have just been given an 8ball and a 6 pack. Like, I saw a non-ironic headline basically saying that keeping the government open was a win for Mike Johnson. Meaning, literally doing their job at all is some kind of a win. And, of course, was he able to do it because he was able to unite his party and get things done? Of course not, it took the adults bailing him out and capitulating because everyone knows if the government was shutdown the story wouldn't be that a Republican majority can't even keep the government open, it would be that Democrats didn't get on board and bail them out.