this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
56 points (75.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4120 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

His intellectual defenders make their case that the danger is overblown.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 122 points 10 months ago (4 children)

He literally said he was going to be. I'm not sure why this is even a question.

[–] ceenote 60 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He literally already tried to be.

"Does he want to?" is not up for debate. "Can he?" is the question. People downplaying the danger he poses are pushing the needle towards "Yes, he can."

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i don't see how there's any other topic in the discussion at this point
"well moving on from the plan of a brutal, unending dictatorship, what's your position on corn subsidies?"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Gotta feed the news goblins.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is not. Conservatives are gaslighting you, and the media is trying to sell their clickbait. Possibly unpopular thought: at some point it becomes our own fault for choosing to engage? Like the big bad wolf asks "are you home right now?", where even if you answer "no!" then you have still fallen for the trick? (i.e., of COURSE he would be a dictator, that's not even a point, but why allow them to control the conversation to switch to the talking points that they choose, rather than driving our own points that we would rather be discussed, like what to do about school shootings or climate change and such?)

Innuendo Studios has a fascinating whole entire video series called "The Alt-Right Playbook" if anyone wants to learn more about their limited variety of tactics, that are nonetheless extremely effective for those who do not recognize them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I really enjoyed that series. Very informative.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

IRK? It totally changed my method of responding to the world... I used to painstakingly attempt to respond unless it was extremely obvious that someone was 110% a troll, but now I know that even halfway reasonable people simply cannot be "reasoned" with, if they have an entirely different worldview than me. i.e., don't give someone a list of 100 reasons to not allow Trump to win - they don't care (after the 1st impeachment, and the 2nd impeachment, and January 6, and everything else), nor are they looking for facts and willing to change their minds. I would change my mind in a heartbeat if the facts pointed in a different direction, but they will not, b/c it is not "facts" that are causing them to support him, even if for some people that once was true.

Ofc I still fall for the tricks, but like 90% less often now:-).

[–] linearchaos 4 points 10 months ago

And he's currently fighting in court to receive dictator benefits for breaking laws.