241–250 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You mean the guy with the federal dismantlement and looting agency that sends credentials to federal IT systems to Russia, openly talks about a third term where people "wouldn't have to vote anymore", crashes the world economy based on some dubious theory about the US dollar being overvalued being the root of crumbling US power and is currently testing the waters to deport US citizens into an overseas prison nobody e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He is a self-made multi-billionaire HAHAHA! No he's not. He inherited his dad's empire. Tanked it and the Russians bailed him out. He's a charlatan, fraudster and a con artist.
Prove that Russians bailed him out, please. I've got to hear this. He did inherit money, like $10M if I recall correctly. But he made the rest of his money. Even if not literally a rags-to-riches case (I never said he was, either), he does not need money. Compare that to, say, AOC who is suddenly worth millions of dollars after a few years on a salary of $180k. Who is more suspicious?
Trump "received at least $413 million in today's dollars from his father's real estate empire".[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as unbiased reporting of facts. People not understanding that, and the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with bias, is a big part of the problem.
Objective reality, it exists. Telling your audience obviously false / anti-factual lies, without any regard for fact checking, is not just "biased reporting". And it is inherently wrong, malevolent, evil. Anyway, I'm amazed each time I hear right wingers who did not get the joke seemingly complaining about how Reality has a left leaning political bias...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you need to read some history, because what I'm talking about happened in the 1930's-60's, when Obama wasn't even born yet. The regulatory agencies are ponderous and slow, too. They are just unelected so they can do unpopular things without it impacting their careers. Executive orders are the latest extension of the trend of do-nothing congresses. They have been growing exponentially over time.
> They are just unelected so they can do unpopular things without it impacting their careers. Yes, this (to an extent), but more importantly, they're also experts. The people hired at these agencies aren't politicians, they're professionals. Seems to me most congress people can barely tell their ass from a hole in the ground these days. Do we really need them chiming in on what medicine is okay and what isn't?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addr... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-pr... >Krebs ... falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen This quote coming from "whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets" is pretty wild. This seems to be retribution, plain and simple.
Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?
...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addr... https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-pr... >Krebs ... falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen This quote coming from "whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets" is pretty wild. This seems to be retribution, plain and simple.
Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?
There was indeed a campaign to fight "misinformation", with active cooperation between the previous administration and social media companies. There was an official effort to establish a disinformation fighting team within the government. Some of the stories like Hunter biden's laptop and COVID origin stuff blew up as what looks like potential partisan censorship cases. And frankly while I'd attribute the latter, and most of these efforts, to stupidity, the former looks like malice even to me. So now one sides idiotic authoritarian self own can be used by the other side to justify even more idiotic even more authoritarian "corrective" action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society), You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles co…
>You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1]. That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state. Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards…
There's also the cost of finding and getting copies of supporting documents, which are often in another state (e.g., the state you were born in, not the state you now live in). Records for many older Americans have not been digitized or even centralized so if your family moved when you were very young you may have to search the physical records in multiple counties to find yours.
> Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need.
Obviously, but the same people passing voter ID laws are also making it harder for people to get ID. They reduce the number of offices that issue IDs, with the reductions disproportionately being in districts that tend to not vote for the people who are passing those laws. They say it is because those districts have much lower drivers per capita so don't need as many DMVs (which are usually the offices that deal with ID).
In the offices that remain they'll reduce the hours in which IDs are issued, getting rid of evening and weekend hours. For many poor people that can mean a full day of lost work to go try to get an ID, and many cannot afford that. Besides the loss of a day's pay these places often have terrible public transit so they are looking at an expensive ride on commercial transportation.
For people in low income jobs these barriers can be huge.
> Anything else permits rampant fraud
Then how come no one has been able to actually find evidence of such fraud? No matter how well funded the search they all come up empty.
> Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote
23% of people earning under $25k/year do not have bank accounts but manage just fine. On that comment I gave you early with all the links to research that you ignored, someone asked how people live without ID and I posted a response there covering some of the ways they get buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit.…
>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real. She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went…
>> She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
> She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate.
It's like the goalposts keep moving to try and get away from the bullshit, but there's always more up ahead...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People don't want to concede anything, even for their own ideals. People cannot concede anything anymore. We are all trapped in survival mode at this point.
In true survival mode, you likely would not hang out around here.
Try to imagine living on $60k, then think about the fact that that’s a good salary to a majority of US workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was emphatically disagreeing with their first sentence. The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently, with the obviously-corrupt SCOTUS ruling ending Chevron deference. Delegating power to regulatory agencies also has nearly nothing to do with Congress's recent gridlock and ineffectiveness, or the spate of executive orders that has prompted.
> The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently Between about 1985 (Chevron) and 2010 (the populist movements in both parties), this idea was at its nadir of popularity. For the entire rest of US history from 1776-1980 and 2010-2025, a distrust of a large executive branch was very popular, and pretty much bipartisan most of the time. Just because…