859
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 25 Nov 2023
859 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1672 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think people get that this difference makes a difference. As a millennial going through college during the GW Bush years, there was at least a Republican party that cared about America, cared about non political government institutions and the service those members participate in, etc. Since the tea party that shit changed. And I don't think it's hard to believe Mitt Romney actually cares about this country and means what he says on this thing. I feel disgusted defending Romney, but I kind of miss it when it was guys like Romney were the political opponents in power and not these MAGA folks hellbent on destroying democracy and politicizing the institutions critical to America.
I mean, I was going through college when GW Bush was elected, and here's what I remember:
Everyone lying about GW Bush being the "first Spanish-speaking President" (he spoke no Spanish at all), the first of many lies meant to cover up his manifest incompetence and intellectual incapability
Republicans shutting the government down for weeks at a time
A maniac, entirely fictitious scandal invented solely to hamper Al Gore's election prospects (the White House phones scandal)
What was different about that day's Republican Party than today's? We knew less about it, was all.
The thing that I dont think a lot of people like to recognize is that GW Bush had both some of the highest and lowest approval ratings. For months immediately after his approval rating was like 90 percent. Dems are also responsible for going to war then, even if they weren't the party in control.
But the thing is republicans did hold institutions, agencies, and administrative government orgs in higher esteem and weren't trying to destroy and purge. That's very different than trump. There's a difference between Mitt Romneys of the. GOP and the Jim Jordans who have never passed their own legislation and instead only focus on dismantling government and going on witch hunts.
I think the other thing you need to look at is how other elected officials speak about working with him. There's what you say in the public light, and then there's the work that actually gets done.
Also, didn't Romney kind of quietly champion universal healthcare in MA? And despite his own views, accept state Supreme Court rulings to provide gay marriage licenses? This guy actually cared about governing.
I think that MAGA-ism has led to a dangerous amount of rose tinted glasses with regard to the pre-Trump GOP. Even the pre-Tea Party GOP (which was the real start of this latest flavor of rot)...
...buuuuuuut
You do make a very good point in the difference between a Romney and a Jordan.
The Romneys of the world may indeed want small government, hell some of them may only want a smaller government...but they still want some degree of government, and by extension, they're still interested in governing. That is: doing their job of steering the nation toward some sort of goal that they feel is a worthwhile betterment of the country.
I may not agree with their goals or the ways they try to get there, but they do in fact have a goal and part of that end goal includes an intact, functioning country with an intact, functioning government.
The Jordans, however, have a fundamentally incompatible end goal: they don't just want small government, they want no government. Any level of government would serve as a check on their power to enforce their ideals, so their constant goal is simply to dismantle any bit of the government they can.
So they literally use their position as a chosen caretaker for the government as a platform to destroy the very thing they're supposed to be managing.
Also 2 unnecessary wars. Iraq causing the US to lose focus in Afghanistan. Republicans steered the Medicare part D BS and Bush signed it. The economy melting down then they blamed Obama. Then they questioned Obama’s citizenship. Before that was Reagan racking up debt, and raising taxes all while “states rights” was used as cover for institutional racism.
Republicans have always been dog shit.
Yes, but they never would have sold us out completely to China or Russia. Their goals were power and grift, but they weren't willing to destroy the country to do so.
As bad as they were, Trump is likely worse.
It's a progression, though. They turned up the heat slowly so people wouldn't notice how they're being boiled alive. Romney isn't a Tea Party/MAGAt like the rest, but he had no problem catering to them during his 2012 bid for the Presidency and he was part of the establishment that paved the way for the extremists. He can afford to distance himself now that he's retiring, but he didn't listen when we warned about the rise of extremism in his party. It's too late to earn our respect for acknowledging it now.
This is like the same logic republicans use to say abortion is just a gateway to death councils for grandma.
Don't make false equivalencies when you don't want them made against your party. Each party has a nuance of plurality in members.
You should really check your facts before committing to an opinion.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/whether-he-debates-or-not-trump-owes-a-lot-to-fox-news/
Specify please. There is nothing to respond to. What facts are you disputing
Only because China and Russia weren't shopping for US politicians at the time. For decades now Republicans have been about catering to the wishes of the wealthy - their basic treasonous natures were just masked by the fact that their wealthy donors used to be all-American.
I don't think you can really argue that the war in Afghanistan was "unnecessary." We were attacked by terrorists from that country, remember?
We were never going to let OBL do 9/11 and then just walk away.
Except we did.
When Bin Laden was cornered in caves in Afghanistan further resources to go after him were denied and sent to Iraq instead. There’s a reason OBL was killed in Pakistan during an entirely different presidential administration.
Sure, you can definitely argue that the war in Iraq was unnecessary.
Yup those fucking hanging ballots could have given Algore in Florida. In general the world would be better