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
Imagine if you're the dictator of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in human history.
A few boos from folks in the cheap seats seems like a small price to pay when you can feast on the townsfolk every night with abandon.
Yet basically all dictators have been harsh on even the lightest of protests, since if you allow it, the protests will grow until you can't deal with it.
Public protests like these are highly useful to fight against Mr. Trump.
Just look how effective calling them weird was.
Oh yeah, keep attacking their masculinity, that is one of their biggest weakpoints.
I don't think the 'weird' thing was really about masculinity. Conservatives value conformity, which is why they mock expressiveness like dyed hair; they think they are the default, and so being called weird and the insult sticking because they are fucking weird really hits them where it hurts
Conservatives mock dyed hair??
Ronald Reagan has entered the chat...
They mock expressively colorfully dyed hair; blue, green, etc.
Again, look at Reagan.
He was older than Trump is now, and no one questioned his hair.
Where it hurts is the money.
Nobody seemed interested in hitting reactionaries in the money. Biden kept dumping cash into the pockets of Musk, Thiel, Zuck, Bezos, and Pichai. Neither do Hochul or Newsom. Dems have the power to hit fascism where it hurts, but they're too terrified of losing access to the Infinite Tech Sector Money Machine.
what does weird have to do with masculinity?
You may be assuming some executive function (delayed gratification) that is missing from the observed behaviour.