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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
The problem is that most people handling this current situation through the lens of classic geopolitics
This is not classic geopolitics. This is the ultra wealthy enacting their plan to create a global plutocracy. A ruling class of only the most wealthy in the world.
They believe that their plans are more easily achieved with a Russian empire than with a free Ukraine.
Ask people like Rubio questions using that as the basis, not classic geopolitics.
Yes, yes, a billion times yes.
To me, the fundamental problem - the primary reason that it seems so difficult to deal with Trump - is that so many politicians and analysts and commentators are still spproaching issues as if the old rules are still in place, and they quite simply aren't.
Every time that another analysis or editorial appears that discusses the "failures" of the Trump administration, since their policies will undermine the original goals of the agency/programs in question, it's ultimately just meaningless noise, since it starts with the patently false presumption that the original goals still count. They don't.
The Trump administration isn't failing to achieve traditional goals - it's succeeding in achieving an entirely new and different set of goals. And there isn't going to be any meaningful commentary until it focuses on those new goals.
Just because Trump has different motivations doesn't mean that's the correct framing for questions. Questions and accusations are more for the audience than trying to get Trump to reconsider why he's doing something, and at least currently that bias toward "how things were supposed to work" still exists in the general public.
I'm fully aware of that (and the notion tgat Trump would ever reconsider anything is foolish on its face). And it's for the audience that the politicians and analysts and commentators need to change the context of their analyses.
And that's a lot of the problem. The people need to be smacked upside the head with the two-by-four of truth.
Why on earth would you want to normalize Trump's motivations? The whole point of talking about things based on those previous frameworks is to make the current events look shocking. If you reframe it according to Trump's new center, then you get quotes like "this was expected" or "this was better than expected" for things that should still shock the audience. That's exactly the framing Republicans want this to have so they don't have to answer questions about Trump breaking from our (and their) previous norms.
Holding the Overton window steady despite Trump obviously not wanting past precedent to mean anything may not be perfectly candid with the audience, but we sure as shit don't want to just take it as given that America is an ally with Russia or antidemocratic moves are to be expected and then feel good when he only does 75% of what we thought he was going to do.
Ah. So reporting "Trump is a lying sack of shit who claims to be dismantling agencies in order to cut spending but is actually methodically eliminating every part of the government that serves to limit the abuses the 1% can heap on the rest of the country" is somehow "normalizing" his actions and reporting "Trump's spending cuts are failing to accomplish as much actual reduction in spending as he promised" somehow is not.
Got it.
Agree, the paradigm has changed and needs fresh eyes.
This is exactly correct, and the Rubios and Grahams currently participating will be discarded like fish and chips paper before the sun sets.
Putin wrote the book on this and it’s playing out page by page.
Putin is one of the most wealthy people on the planet
And yet when he was recalled to Moscow after the fall of the Berlin Wall he brought back a washing machine because he couldn't get one back home.
Dude started at the bottom and now he's here. Game recognize game.
Is there an estimate of liquid net worth? I'm curious.
It's difficult to estimate because of how much of it is hidden through shell corporations, offshore accounts, or simply under other people's names.
Putin also has incredibly expensive homes, yachts, etc, they're just under a different entities' name
Yes I remember an article a long time ago about a palatial, secret estate. I believe the that of any more leaks was neutralized.
He's allegedly have more than a trillion stashed at some of the Swiss ,cyprus or European banks
You mean the West is talking out of both sides of our mouths?! Nooo!
That's s lot of bread. I wonder if it was in any of the leaks by Snowden, Assange etc that got good people branded as terrorists or enemies of states?