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
This was true only ~15 years ago. My how things have changed. The Tea Party replaced the old progressives, where like GW Bush even provided government funding to feed the homeless, teach kids, etc. Then even before that finished happening the Alt Right took over from the inside. Now I don't even know what to call the latest movement, although it seems to no longer matter if it is already over and the Alt Right is back in power with Trump at the helm again.
I have heard that the person most single-handedly responsible for the rift before all that was Newt Gingrich, who proposed the hard-line stance of obstructionism, where after that cooperation was seen as weak while before that it was a strength.
9/11 deeply affected alot of emotion-first thinkers. It bothered the rest of us quite a bit too, but it hurt them in a way that permanently changed them. It was a major turning point in the GOPs course, since they primarily court emotion-first thinkers votes.
So much so that their name literally changed (to GQP).
There's a very good (and very long) article about all the ways Gingrich screwed over American politics. Not just the obstructionism, but the dirty tricks, gaslighting, nonsense propaganda, as well as the shift from actually governing to constantly campaigning during your term, can be laid at his feet.
Thank you for sharing that.
He is not entirely wrong - the weaponization of such measures (e.g. gaslighting to name just one) is, if not quite "smart", then at least "tactical". i.e. even if your intelligence is about average but your emotional intelligence is roughly that of a 5-year-old, then yes indeed you can get your way using those measures. That is the largest part of the problem there: it works.
One quote calls out to me:
But it is entirely a whoosh moment when he understands the idea that for a lion to eat when it is hungry is not viciousness - that much of what he said is (somewhat?) true - yet entirely misses the point that when a human DELIBERATELY CHOOSES to engage in similar behaviors, especially when no hunger is involved, THAT is indeed "viciousness", essentially defined as:
Like, I get it - a homeless person might trespass to sleep somewhere that they should not be b/c they are cold. They might even steal a sandwich b/c they are hungry. That does not make it right but it is understandable. But how does Bezos or Musk not paying their workers measure up when compared to that? Why is the former called "theft" while the latter is called "just doing business"?
I struggle a LOT with the ethics of various matters in life. e.g. should I cease purchasing cheap chocolates, knowing full well that near (occasionally even actual) slave labor conditions are involved (even for those that claim to be "fair trade" or whatever - nope, it's nearly all a lie, according to that video anyway), or would that actually lead to an even WORSE outcome, to deprive those workers of that source of income, when they clearly have nothing else to turn to besides that which can offer anything close to that quality of life?
And I think I know the answer, given by another quote in the article you link to:
In other words, like Trump, people often give him too much credit. He may symbolize the turning of the tide, and he may even have fallen victim to their swings before most anyone else (at least, at a roughly similar level of power & notoriety), but he is no "driving force" of a man himself, and rather seems more like a child to me. Which notably excuses him from precisely none of his actions btw. It's just that the problem isn't so much him, as all of our society that will continue to elect people exactly like him long after he is gone.
Cancer is also "natural" I note, but it would take a severely twisted person to act like a cancer on purpose. Moreover, why would we, The People, CHOOSE to elect a Cancer to lead us?