213
submitted 4 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 68 points 4 months ago

Nice try, New York Times

You can’t pretend you all of a sudden realized that Trump is a threat to all of American democracy and relay it to us like it’s breaking news and hope we’ll be gaslit into thanking you for informing us because we were not aware, and forget about all the coverage up until yesterday where you were explicitly favoring him for some horrifying reason

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 4 months ago

It's Paul Krugman. He's been talking about how awful Trump is since at least 2016

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

... and before that he was talking about how awful Bernie Sanders is. Fuck him.

[-] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago

Not sure what that has to do with discussing the dangers of Trump. You can agree with someone about one thing and disagree about other things.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Sure, or I can disregard his opinions entirely.

I've found, throughout my life, there are many opinions that should be disregarded.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

He said Nice try NYT, not nice try Krugman. Krugman's a minority voice there these days; the overwhelming majority of NYT coverage has been all about Biden's age (while ignoring trump's age and word salad incoherence)

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

were explicitly favoring him for some horrifying reason

I'm at work on a short break so I can't pull up the source, but the guy whose family "runs" the NYTs has said he's looking to court conservative readers. He has denied this somewhat recently, but the trend matches the behavior we witnessed l. I found this by trying to figure out who owns the NYT to begin with so maybe start with the wiki on NYT

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 4 months ago

Although I don’t at all agree with its central thesis about the Times, this article goes into a good bit of the history and the behind the scenes. I talked in the comments about what I think is mistaken about the article, but you can still learn a lot about the Times from reading the facts it is basing its incorrect conclusions on.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 52 points 4 months ago

WWII.

They're Russian assets. The GOP is the Russia's most impressive achievement in the cold war.

[-] Icalasari@fedia.io 20 points 4 months ago

Essentially. After WWII, the US imported some Nazis in exchange for their research. This was a mistake. They are like an infection. You do not let any of it survive. You eradicate it

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago

As if there weren't plenty of fascists in the US already. Like a certain Fred Trump, who was arrested in 1927 for taking part in a KuKluxKlan rally.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 18 points 4 months ago

Yeah there were plenty of facists in the US already before WWII. Here's Madison Square garden in 1939.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Or the Silver Shirts.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago

Operation paperclip. What a disaster. Should have looked more like Lenin storming the palace.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah but we got to go to the moon so there’s that

They actually tried to just poach the research and have American researchers do it, but they weren’t up to the task. They had to put the Nazi scientists in charge before the rockets started really working.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Not much of an achievement. The fuckers basically fell over themselves to suck Putin's dick.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The cold war started like 80 years ago.

Believe me when I say there were virtually 0 Americans falling over themselves to suck Putin, or any other Russian's dick in the 70s. This has been a century's long effort. The fact they fall over themselves to suck Putin's dick today is the achievement.

Never underestimate the adversary.

[-] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Decline of the Republican party took off with the dropping the requirement of "News" channels to actually have News.

Fox (Faux) news & Reagan started us on the road, Putin jumped on & up to pilot the train more recently. Propaganda and division are their standard bearers. They are now the fake news snowflake party (gays are ruining America! Bad books are corrupting our children! Immigrants are raping and spreading drugs everywhere!).

It is a terrorist organization. I wish defense department (& budget) would be used to dismantle Murdoch's & Putin's tendrils.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They hate America as it is, but they love America as it used to be, or, more accurately, they love the sanitized, propagandized version of how America used to be. They want to return America to its former supposed glory.

Frankly, I hate America as it is, also, but I don't want to go back to some fantasy golden era, I just want the country to be better.

Sometimes I feel like I'm sitting in a dirty, cluttered, dilapidated house with two other people. I say to them, "this place is a mess, this is totally unacceptable, we need to clean this place and fix it up." The person in the middle says, "What are you talking about? Everything's fine." The person on the right says, "If this place is a mess, it's because you two strayed too far from this household's traditional values, and if we're going to return this home to its former glory, you two must embrace those values. If you don't, I'm going to kill you." It's frustrating, depressing, and terrifying.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So, if I'm understanding your meaning with this comic, you would say that I, the person on the left, don't recognize that the house is actually in fine order, and that I want change for the sake of change, or because I'm just a malcontent, and if I try to bring about the change I want, I will end up creating chaos and disorder?

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Nah, I wasn't saying anything about you, your metaphor of America as a house just reminded me of this comic, which was posted shortly after Trump won the election. If you want a connection, this happened before you arrived to see the house a mess.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure I knew what you meant.

[-] edgarde@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

This is why editorial cartoons often have stupid labels on everything. If that character had "GOP" on his chest, you would immediately know this is a critique of Trumpism.

And a version of this image will show up in a conservative forum with the chest caption "DEI".

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

The real answer is that over the decades of progressively more ossified leadership, Republicans have moved to the conservative position of ruling rather than representing. If something prevents them from ruling, then they dismantle it. The final obstacle preventing them from ruling is democracy itself.

[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

A movement which sees affinity in strong-man governments around the world. They view Putin (or Orban/ Kim / Xi, and even Modi now) as a model for what they’d like to bring about domestically.

Single party rule, sometimes with the facade of an opposition party. This is their end goal.

[-] Wytch@lemmy.zip 25 points 4 months ago

They're jaded because America has largely rejected their social platforms and failed economically under their policies.

The GOP is unpopular, vilified, and hopelessly devoid of merit or integrity. They've decided that the only way to win America is to beat her into submission.

They're sore losers; they're losing at history, and at governance. This is their revenge.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I don't think they have anything against America specifically. They just seem to want to cash in as much as possible, which is fairly standard for politicians in general.

Seems like the big difference is that they're increasingly able to get away with stuff that would have otherwise ended their political career or straight up put them behind bars...

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don’t think they have anything against America specifically.

Depends on who's america you're referring to. A vibrant diverse multicultural melting pot? HAHA NO.

A white christo-fascist theocracy? The GOP's down for that.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

My take is that they think that by sharing the cake with others, it means less for themselves. It's self serving greed and an inability to grasp that we are better as a joint community than as a collective of individuals.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

They want "America" to mean "cis white straight Christian males are at the top, and everyone else is either second class or dead."

[-] Zorg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago

No, they want corporations to rule and line their pockets, even more than they already do.
Racism, religion, sexism, and all the other fear & hate, are just useful tools to rile up voters, and pull the wool over their eyes.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They want both. There are many in power who are true believers of the religious stuff, as evidenced by the SCROTUS decision to ban abortion, which has no monetary benefit. There would, however, have been a benefit to keeping it legal, as outrage fuel for the base. Now that the dog's caught the car, they've lost that benefit.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

decision to ban abortion, which has no monetary benefit.

Unwanted children keep people poor, unable to relocate, and desperate for work and validation. Banning abortion has a direct monetary benefit to every red state and most religion, as poor people remain poor and desperate and remain underpaid and overworked and unable to make a change.

Make no mistake, there is very much a poor-to-pulpit pipeline and ensuring that accidental pregnancies are forced to term keeps that pipeline full.

I do believe there are some true believers that think an abortion is an Affront To God, but the rest of them are just riding those coattails as an excuse. But there's always a profit motive. Always. These mfers wouldn't wipe their own ass if they weren't skimming tax money for it. It's always a grift, every single time.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I'd have to see concrete evidence that banning abortion has led to significant monetary gains for red states before I'll believe it.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 9 points 4 months ago

You can't manipulate the laws easily enough,and dirty money is traced and collected.

The GOP wants this to be more like China and Russia, they see these untouchable oligarchs and their little crooked dicks get hard.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The elitists that provide the funding behind movement conservatism and their think tanks, professors, etc., have long had it in for everything America is really supposed to stand for. They hate this country and most of the people in it.

It's ironic because cons are associated with symbolic manipulation (things like bits of colored cloth and songs and associated ritual movements) that leads (low-info) people to think they are the patriots that are for freedom and love the Constitution.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

How the hell do you expect their "fix America" message to land if it isn't broken in the first place?

this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
213 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3778 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