822
Trump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed Legal Lines
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
822 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19239 readers
2400 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't, I know what it was like to be an optimistic young adult. I understand the allure of holding strong to an ethical code while others' compromises seem to make the progress all too slow.
The truth is that this shit takes time and requires a lot of pressure - and that's a fucking bitter pill to swallow.
I understand what you're saying and I want to sympathize, but I feel like we're so far outside the norm here that some of this falls a bit flat to me. Like we aren't talking about being swayed by a wolf in sheep's clothing here, Trump is a an entire pack of wolves loudly shouting "the wolves have arrived, fuck all you sheep!"
I think there was a point what you say rang true, but I can't help but feel like we're so off-course at this point that if you haven't seen Trump for what he is yet it must be because you are WILLFULLY evading that reality.
I find it genuinely difficult to believe that anyone touting the "both sides are the same narrative" still, today, about Trump, can possibly truly believe that. I genuinely think you are only hearing from the mouths of charlatans, foreign agents, intentional accelerationists, and the absolute most genuinely ignorant of people. Maybe I'm jaded, but the alternative is legitimately incomprehensible to me at this point.
There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.
Aren't 70+ years enough time though? Those people are done. You can't ask them to swallow bitter pills for that long of a time while also telling them to shut up because "you are enabling the enemy". They have valid criticisms that some key people from the Democratic side are far too happy to ignore. Honest question...how do you compromise with an ongoing genocide in an apartheid state?
Same way we compromised with the UK and France in WW1, or the Soviet Union in WW2, or Turkiye during the Cold War, or Saudi Arabia in the modern day.
When there are some 200 countries in the world, all with their own squabbles that affect their region and themselves, taking no sides is still taking sides - and no side is clean. The idea that there's some ideal option where no one gets hurt is just not the reality of things. Not every conflict is like this - not every conflict will continue to be like this. We can make a better world. But not by sitting on our hands now in an attempt to keep them 'clean'. Short of quite literally conquering the entire world, all of our choices are necessarily limited by the need to take a side in most conflicts, in which both sides are often pretty gruesome.
That being said, fuck Israel. Revoke everything. Side with Palestine.
We didnt give it 70 years. 40 years ago we had Ronald Fucking Reagan gutting the federal government like a fish, and we go back to that party like a pendulum every 4 to 8 years.