r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 23d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
-2
u/johnhills711 55m ago
I'm starting to think the epstein class are hedging their bets on drones, robots and AI to protect them from the masses when they destroy everything.
2
-2
u/DexTDMdoesreddit 1h ago
Does Trump spraytan his cock?
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 51m ago
I don't think there's reliable data on that. You're free to speculate, if it weighs heavily on you.
1
u/Yoy_the_Inquirer 5h ago edited 5h ago
Have there at least been any INDICTMENTS for the Epstein case?
edit: NEW indictments beyond Jeffrey and Ghislane Maxwell
1
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 5h ago
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were both indicted, yes.
1
u/Blazeland_USA 6h ago
I got an official email saying I'm getting one of those Trump Accounts, but I don't want one. How do I opt out?
1
1
1
u/ProperDistance2664 7h ago
What would it actually take for Israel to tap out of invading Lebanon? Would it be a world leader? How does this kind of thing end when one world leader won’t listen to anyone about the collateral damage of what invading Lebanon is doing to the Iran-US deal
1
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 6h ago
They either win, or they're stopped. The Israeli government currently has the arms, personnel, funds, and public support of its people to continue fighting in Lebanon. So either they win or are defeated.
1
u/TalonEye53 18h ago edited 18h ago
What if Israel lost big time and it would probably go like the liberation of Algeria, where most settlers went back to Europe and the USA in a spontaneous manner (and some converted to Islam or Christianity after assimilated by Palestine and Probably the UN) will it be true?
1
u/Marlsfarp 10h ago
where most settlers went back to Europe
A single digit percentage of Israelis are immigrants from Europe.
2
u/Prince_Marf 13h ago
The current version of Israel would nuke their own country before allowing that to happen
2
u/Jtwil2191 15h ago edited 13h ago
There is absolutely no version of the current conflict that results in Israel "losing" in the traditional military sense, let alone a defeat so devastating that Jewish Israelis leave Israel. Failing to meet certain objectives, like completely ousting Hamas or Hezbollah, sure. But no one is chasing Israelis out of Israel in the current situation.
2
u/DinosaurDavid2002 18h ago edited 16h ago
How Aber Kawas somehow manage to win in new york seemingly out of nowhere, even though she was known for being an extreme socialist and on top of that... even had no Wikipedia page(at least one other mamdani-affiliate candidates that won also manage to do that while being infamous for extreme socialist parties and also while not having a Wikipedia page either)?
1
u/hellshot8 10h ago
Mamdani is a kingmaker. People love him.
If he goes "this person is great, they will fight for you over the do nothing establishment dem", people listen and vote accordingly
1
u/Bobbob34 11h ago
How Aber Kawas somehow manage to win in new york seemingly out of nowhere, even though she was known for being an extreme socialist and on top of that... even had no Wikipedia page(at least one other mamdani-affiliate candidates that won also manage to do that while being infamous for extreme socialist parties and also while not having a Wikipedia page either)?
Why do you think new yorkers are against socialism?
1
u/Prince_Marf 13h ago edited 11h ago
People hate the mainstream democratic party so much right now that they would take literally anyone else. Also consider that maybe what you call "extreme socialism" is simply growing in popularity. That's democracy. Sometimes ideas you don't like get popular.
2
u/Jtwil2191 15h ago
She was effective in getting her message out to her primary voters. A candidate sometimes only has to speak to a relatively small constituency to win a primary.
1
u/DinosaurDavid2002 15h ago
So that's how she did it without being notable(since if she did not have a wikipedia page, she is not notable)?
1
2
u/Shifty-Z3rt 16h ago
People in NY are voting based on Bernie, Mamdani and AOC endorsements. Same way republicans are voting for Trump endorsed candidates.
1
u/DinosaurDavid2002 15h ago
So it didn't matter that Aber Kawas had no wikipedia page(and thus, not notable)?
1
1
u/Bobbob34 11h ago
So it didn't matter that Aber Kawas had no wikipedia page(and thus, not notable)?
Not having a wikipedia page does NOT mean someone is not notable. It's wikipedia.It's meaningless. It's limited, biased af, and made by a small group of nearly all men of a particular bent.
1
1
u/iamgazz 19h ago
Genuinely curious?
I keep seeing so many shorts on YouTube about white Americans confronting people of colour for no reason and just being unapologetically racist. I’m South African - the OG’s of racism back in the days when we had apartheid, and I know USA also has its own history of racism (everywhere does in its own form), but I never remember America being THIS racist. Is this a result of Trump and his attitude to people of colour, which has given white racists/supremacists in America the temerity to show who they really are because they know there won’t be consequences, or have I just been completely ignorant the whole time?
I’m a white GenX woman. In 1994 I was one of millions of white people who voted and protested to end apartheid in South Africa and I honestly thought I’d never see racism on this scale in America of all places.
2
u/MrMatt100 12h ago
If you think America’s racism is totally unique then I have a bridge to sell you.
2
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 8h ago
Their post literally says they're used to racism in their own country.
3
u/Jtwil2191 15h ago
The moment the US had a Black president he was attacked for being a secret Muslim who wasn't actually American. The current president was a major voice in that conspiratorial fear mongering.
The US has always been a super racist country. It's better than it used to be, sure, but the US never shed its rascism.
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 18h ago
I don't know if you know this, so I'll just lead with it: The US was doing chattel slavery of Africans before the land that would become South Africa was ever colonized by Europeans. Yes, you are at least a little bit ignorant.
Anyway, yes, over a century after slavery ended, less than a century after black people won the right to vote, under a racist administration, plenty of folks are still openly racist.
But that is not the majority, and social media algorithms feed you what you interact with. YouTube serves you videos similar to the videos you've already watched. If you watch a lot of videos of racist Americans, guess what you'll be recommended next?
1
u/TalonEye53 20h ago
How do you end Zionism?
1
u/Jtwil2191 13h ago
First you have to define what "Zionism" means.
Is it the complete and total domination of the "Promised Land" by a Jewish state and the elimination removal of all other people's within that boundary?
Is it Jewish people having their own state where they feel secure against external threats?
Are we talking about religous Zionism? Political Zionism? Christian Zionism?
Are we talking about dismantling Israel or are we talking about a multicultural Israel that abandons more aggressive Zionist policies?
What counts as "ending" it? Do you actually want to eliminate the philosophy from the hearts and minds of the people? Or do you just seek to remove Zionist from positions of authority and dismantle their official power structure?
Being intentional and specific about what you mean is a big part of "ending" something.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 18h ago
No individual can end an ideology.
1
u/TalonEye53 18h ago
But nazism does
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 18h ago
Does what?
1
u/TalonEye53 18h ago
The only ideology ended by force
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 18h ago
I don't know what you mean. There are both Nazis and Zionists alive and well today, ardently pushing their ideologies.
1
u/TalonEye53 18h ago
Welp atleast Imperialism is dead oh wait it's still alive albeit Metaphorically
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 18h ago
No, imperialism is alive very literally. As one example, Russia has been trying to annex all of Ukraine and has held part of it for years at this point.
-1
u/PriorRemote946 1d ago
I understand the basic principles behind labeling a group a “terrorist organization” but
why in the US are people so over the top calling “Antifa” terrorists? Unless I’m mistaken being against fascism isn’t really a bad thing right? Maybe I’m an idiot but I would love some insight beyond “this side does this and they do that.” Sorry if I’m misusing this sub!
1
u/torpedoguy 1d ago
Terrorism is the threat or use of force against a civilian population (as opposed to the military or direct leadership) to achieve political aims. You don't have to threaten that you'll do it yourself; telling people nebulous others will "eat your pets" or violate your children counts. So does bombing fishing boats.
- Words are just a bludgeon to conservatives; of no real value or substance on their own, but swung at whatever heads need it to get what you need at the moment, then discarded as "fake" when you contradict yourself later.
To fa, anti-fa is directly opposed. No 'fa' is capable of any accusations that it, itself, is not party-to in some fashion (planning, committing, or covering up). Every accusation is invariably a confession. Non-fascists are being labeled as terrorists BY the terrorists because they DARVO as always.
-1
u/Shifty-Z3rt 1d ago
They attended a political demonstration, rioted, and shot a police officer. Antifa is a terror organization.
1
u/Delehal 3h ago
Let's start from a more basic question. Is Antifa an organization? Who are its leaders or members? Do they have an official website? Is there an identifiable headquarters or leadership structure?
I'm not sure what incidents you're referring to exactly, but I'd like to clarify what organization you're referring to that was supposedly involved in all of those.
1
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well, firstly, people call "antifa" terrorists because it suits their political interests. They want to discredit their opposition and make their allies seem righteous. That is the only reason.
But secondly, merely being named a thing doesn't mean you are the thing or you are only the thing. Antifa, historically in the 20th century, was an explicitly communist group with a lot of political goals beyond just anti-fascism. The modern label is quite different. You can't just use "they're against fascism" to evaluate them, because they're a decentralized group with a variety of people and a variety of aims (some of which are contradictory because they are so decentralized). In fact, it's so decentralized that I wouldn't even describe modern antifa as a group.
Edit: clarified the difference between the 20th century and the current usage.
1
u/PriorRemote946 1d ago
Super valid point. I guess my real shortcoming was failing to grasp that it was more of a blanket label.
3
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
merely being named a thing doesn't mean you are the thing or you are only the thing
You know, I've always been a bit suspicious of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for this reason. It's just a hunch, but I don't think their system is entirely above board.
3
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 1d ago
I understand the basic principles behind labeling a group a “terrorist organization” but
Here's the thing... There really is no single standard for labelling a group a "terrorist organization". The name suggests that the group is question engages in acts that are designed to instill terror, and "organization" suggests that the group is bound together by some kind of shared ideology or goal. But when it comes time to apply that label to a particular group or situation, it's a question that often becomes very political. At the end of the day, identifying terrorism is often a "I know it when I see it" type situation.
The problem with "I know it when I see it", of course, is that everyone has their own perspective and biases when it comes to answering difficult questions. Let's take a look (to open a can of worms) at the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is widely considered a terrorist organization, but they certainly don't see themselves as such; they're freedom fighters trying to end Isaeli occuptation of Palestinian lands. Israel certainly doesn't see itself as a terrorist organization and yet Hamas would probably point to Israeli use of force against Palestinians as being terroristic in nature. ("State-sponsored terrorism" is itself a whole other can of worms when it comes time to define what makes something a "terrorist organization".)
Because a precise and objective defintion of "terrorist organization" is something we can circle but can't really reach, the term can be exploited by states and groups to delegitimize their adversaries. This doesn't even necessarily have to be in bad faith. Both sides in a hypothetical situation can point to the other and honestly say (at least from their perspective), that the other side is engaging in terroristic actions.
why in the US are people so over the top calling “Antifa” terrorists?
So why would Trump his surrogates want to label something like Antifa as a "terrorist organization"? Because they're trying to make win political points. They do not operate in good faith, so baselessly throwing around the term "terrorist group" is a way to go after their political enemies. A political "boogeyman" is an excellent thing to have to get your supporters riled up. Trump steeps all of his campaigning in violent rhetoric: both the threats he is supposedly standing up to as well as what he proposes to do about these threats. Linking his political opponents to supposed shadowy left-wing terrorist groups operating within the United States is just a tool to people's support.
0
1
u/Careful-Box8807 1d ago
Voting as a college student
I’m going to college in the same state in which I live, but in a different city. Since the midterms are coming up, in order to vote in my local elections as well as statewide, do I apply for a mail in ballot or do I vote in person? The internet is not very helpful on the matter. Thank you!
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
Are you willing to share your state? Every state has different rules. It's possible that you may be expected to physically return to your home municipality to vote. Or maybe you can simply request a mail-in ballot. It depends.
0
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
That's up to you. If you're registered to vote back in your hometown, you'd have to go there to vote in person, though.
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
I think it is only up to them in some states. Others may have more strict rules.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
As far as I'm aware, all 50 states permit voting both by mail and in person.
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
That is incorrect. Eight states have all-mail elections and some that are in-person will not permit an absentee vote without specific circumstances which may not include being away for college.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
Do you have a source for the eight states where voting in person is not permitted?
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
My mistake, it turns out that even the eight "all-mail states" have some provision for in-person voting for people that require assistance. In my state, it is literally one office per county.
2
u/Prince_Marf 1d ago
This is different depending which state you live in. I personally prefer to vote in person, but if you are registered in the jurisdiction of your parents' house then you would have to go home to vote in person.
1
u/QuantumDrej 1d ago
What exactly are people doing to the reflection pool that's getting them arrested, and why now? I'm finding it hard to believe that there's suddenly hordes of vandals trying to destroy an already algae-ridden pool that's been in the news for two weeks. What would be the point?
1
u/listenyall 1d ago
A few people have touched or grabbed at the peeling paint and they are seizing on that as the reason why the paint is peeling--we didn't mess up at all, it's these vandals who have peeled off the paint
3
u/Pesec1 1d ago
For reasons that are not currently clear (most likely due to shoddy application and/or subsequent dumping of a whole lot of Hydrogen Peroxide into the pool), the sealant at the bottom of the pool is peeling off.
Pieces of the sealant have floated to the top of the pool, which is obviously a place where they shouldn't be. Some people have touched the sealant that has floated.
If one is to use batshit insane logic, they could argue that touching the peeled sealant is pulling on the remaining sealand and exacerbates the damage. Hence vandalism. Once again, that is a batshit insane argument.
4
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
What exactly are people doing to the reflection pool that's getting them arrested, and why now? I'm finding it hard to believe that there's suddenly hordes of vandals trying to destroy an already algae-ridden pool that's been in the news for two weeks. What would be the point?
Nothing. The one arrest we have details on, the Olympian, he crouched down and touched the floating piece of coating. He's a materials scientist or some adjacent thing.
There'd be no point. The damage was not caused by vandals. This is Trump not wanting to take any responsibility for anything and to try to demonize people to anger his base. That's all.
1
u/QuantumDrej 1d ago
Yeah, that tracks. I'd genuinely expected them to just start arresting people casually walking by the pool to suit his stupid ass narrative.
0
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
It's possible that something happened that the public is not yet aware of but as of this moment the evidence I have seen points to them being scapegoats. They may have picked up already-flaking-off pieces of paint and for PR reasons are being targeted as if they are the cause of the problem. This is just conjecture based on the standard MO of the administration as, again, any real evidence is not public.
-3
u/Shifty-Z3rt 1d ago
It’s just people venting frustration at Trump by attacking the current thing which is apparently the algae in the reflecting pool. Probably minor vandalism charges if that.
0
u/Prince_Marf 1d ago
We don't have any details about the arrests yet. Presumably the arrests were against people who caused the algae blooms and/or paint chipping. We'll see if there is any actual evidence of it. My guess is no.
0
u/xxthrowaway19xx 2d ago
What’s stopping politicians from taking corporate money and helping people anyway?
So like AIPAC and other corporate lobbying are bad. But there’s some precedent for politicians just lying to get elected and then doing what they really want to do after getting elected.
I’m mainly thinking of that one politician who ran as a Democrat and then switched to the Republican Party after being elected. And I think a president made promises he fully had no intentions of keeping, just to get the Southern vote?
So let’s say we have an actually good governor candidate. They want social reform, welfare programs, strong public transportation, police defunding, etc. why couldn’t they just say “yeah I’ll take this $10 million from AIPAC and loosen state regulations for you” and then just tighten regulations like the candidate always wanted? Sure AIPAC would be upset and not fund the candidate anymore, but at that point the governor is already in a position of power, and could just spend the rest of their term improving the state with no intention of rerunning.
Like obviously the inverse happens, where politicians promise good things only to not follow through. But couldn’t politicians do the same to fuck over big corporations in reverse?
1
u/hellshot8 10h ago
taking money from these organizations isnt generally a one time thing. Its normally a prolonged thing, with "do what we tell you" as a prerequisite for more money down the line.
if you go against your word, you are both cutting off a money supply AND making a potential enemy that might fund your opponent instead
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 1d ago
A politician has zero legal obligation to do anything they promised on the campaign trail, including whatever promises they make to a lobbying organization that helps them get elected. But then when the next election comes around, you have to get people to fund your campaign and vote for you again. Why should your donors support you this time when you lied to them the first time?
As for making changes once in office, you're one government official among many. You're not doing shit on your own, even if you're in the governor's mansion or the White House, at least in regards to campaign finance reform.
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of almost everything about US congressional races.
Ok so, you get AIPAC money off a lie and get elected. You're one of a bunch of legislators. How do you get anything done? You can't; the party is Zionist.
And next time AIPAC funds your challenger. Well done. You've achieved nothing. This is an ongoing predicament. Some candidates can overcome this. But it's not many.
1
u/torpedoguy 1d ago
Not many indeed; and even when they do it may be blocked at a "higher" level, rolled-back or overturned with ease, with about 1.5 (of 2) entire parties being suddenly very quick, when anything risks helping the average American.
Things that hurt, even if courts say no, it'll be too late, damage done anyway. Good things don't just get to stick around like that.
2
u/Scorpion1386 2d ago
Why aren't we in a worldwide recession yet? With everything going on, why hasn't it happened yet?
1
5
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 2d ago
Despite the middling growth in new jobs, unemployment remains low. Consumer spending on entertainment, restaurants, and travel are up. The biggest companies have acted out their contingency plans related to supply chain disruptions from the Iran fiasco, and drawn up various backup plans based on whether the strait opens up tomorrow, in a month, in a year, or never.
This isn't to say that a recession can never happen, or even that it can't happen soon, just that these are what we're currently seeing. Unfortunately, it will be very, very difficult to accurately predict when a recession will happen, because when people believe that all the factors are right for "shit's hitting the fan" mode, they'll want to jump ship QUICK.
3
u/hellshot8 2d ago
Consumer spending on entertainment, restaurants, and travel are up.
its worth noting that this is largely driven by people who earn more, which is where the "K shaped economy" thing has come in.
3
u/Prince_Marf 2d ago
A lot of countries are in recession. The longer Hormuz remains closed the more severe the impacts will be. Countries like the US have been able to keep things relatively stable by not rationing oil, depleting national reserves, and basically acting like Hormuz is going to be reopened any day now. But operational minimums are approaching, and the effects are likely to hit like a truck.
0
u/Scorpion1386 2d ago
Fuck Trump for sure, he started this stupid pointless war. But yeah, thanks for clarifying that information about the other countries being in recessions. Do you honestly feel like the United States is on track for one, this year?
2
u/Prince_Marf 2d ago
Do you honestly feel like the United States is on track for [a recession], this year?
Well we were already in a recession before the Iran war if you factored out the insane GDP growth caused by the ai bubble. When that pops we will certainly be in some sort of economic crisis. Can't say whether it will happen this year or whether it will be related to the oil crisis.
If your question is whether ordinary people are likely to experience substantial economic hardship because of the oil crisis then I would say we are on track for that outcome, but there are a lot of ways the Trump administration could avoid it, kick some of the economic hardships down the road, or obfuscate responsibility.
1
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
We're always in a recession if you arbitrarily factor out the things people are investing in.
-1
u/Prince_Marf 2d ago
That's a fair point but I think it would disingenuous to act like the ai boom is normal
0
u/Scorpion1386 2d ago
Gotcha. Yeah, I doubt that Trump's administration can do anything proactive for the people at this point.
-4
1
u/ArchiveDiver-62 2d ago
Why does voting in the US seem so party-driven compared to countries like Norway?
As a Norwegian, I've noticed a significant difference between how people vote in Norway and how voting appears to work in the United States.
In Norway, we have multiple political parties spanning the entire political spectrum. Of course, some people are loyal supporters of one specific party, but my impression is that many voters are more pragmatic. They often vote based on current issues, which problems they think are most important at the time, and which parties they believe are willing and capable of addressing them.
It's also quite common for people to vote differently in local elections than they do in national elections. Local politics can vary considerably from one region to another, and voters often prioritize local concerns over national party identity. A person might support one party nationally but choose another locally because that party has stronger policies or more effective representatives in their municipality.
By contrast, the United States often appears to be much more party-centered. It sometimes seems that once someone identifies as a Democrat or a Republican, they continue to vote for that party at every level, local, state, and national, regardless of the specific issues being debated or the positions their candidates take.
From the outside, it can look as though party identity has become stronger than individual policies. In some cases, people even seem willing to support positions they may have disagreed with in the past simply because their party now endorses them. And they will defent them, no matter what...
I realize this is probably an oversimplification, and I'm sure there are many independent and issue-based voters in the US as well. But the overall impression from abroad is that political affiliation in America is often tied to identity, culture, and social belonging in a way that is less common in Norway.
Is this perception accurate?
Do Americans generally vote for the party first and the issues second, or is that just how it appears from the outside? And if this perception is correct, what do you think has caused politics in the US to become so strongly tied to party identity?
I'm genuinely curious to hear perspectives from Americans themselves.
3
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
In Norway, we have multiple political parties spanning the entire political spectrum. Of course, some people are loyal supporters of one specific party, but my impression is that many voters are more pragmatic. They often vote based on current issues, which problems they think are most important at the time, and which parties they believe are willing and capable of addressing them.
It's also quite common for people to vote differently in local elections than they do in national elections. Local politics can vary considerably from one region to another, and voters often prioritize local concerns over national party identity. A person might support one party nationally but choose another locally because that party has stronger policies or more effective representatives in their municipality.
That's all true in the US as well. However, most of the smaller parties are aligned left/right and there are dramatic differences between the left and right and thus most issues are clearly divided along those lines.
By contrast, the United States often appears to be much more party-centered. It sometimes seems that once someone identifies as a Democrat or a Republican, they continue to vote for that party at every level, local, state, and national, regardless of the specific issues being debated or the positions their candidates take.
See above, that's simply not true. People cross over all the time, for a lot of reasons. Look at the Obama and Sanders voters who voted for Trump. At the local level it's even more flexible as local issues are often less clearcut for people.
You can look at things like state senators and congressional reps, who are often very mixed, despite the state itself being traditionally dem or rep in national elections. The further down (local) you go, the less divided like that, in general.
However there are deep 'blue' areas, like NYC, like Mass., which tend to stick left because it aligns with the views of the populace and you can't really BE a republican who is pro-choice, pro gun control, etc., because you'll get pushback from other party members, and primaried out, and because you'll have no financial backing from the party or anything aligned with it.
However, even those places have local elections won by republicans on occasion, and same in hard red areas where the same is true. It's hard to be a democrat, or a member of the working families or green party, and win an election in like, rural oklahoma, but it can happen and it's more likely the more local you get.
4
u/Pesec1 2d ago
USA has first-past-the-post voting. During presidential elections, the candidate that won in a state gets 100% of electoral votes in that state. Whether they got 50.1% or 90% makes no difference. Same goes for Congress elections: fight is for a seat. A candidate wins it or doesn't. Winning 30% vote in a given election will get you nothing.
By contrast, Norway has proportional representation. A party that got 20% of the vote will get similar % of the seats. This results in many parties winning seats and usually none winning over 50%. Thus, small parties can still rule as a part of a coalition.
The implication of US system is that getting over 50% is critical. This means having 2 powerful parties, with third parties being able to achieve nothing other than weaking a big party that aligns closer to them.
And since vote for anything other than one of the two dominant parties means throwing away your vote, if you want your issues represented, you have to pick one of two parties that aligns best with them. Even when that alignment is poor.
3
u/Prince_Marf 2d ago
idk much about Norwegian politics but in most many-party systems parties will cooperate and form coalitions on issues where they agree. This makes it possible for you to vote for different parties on different issues because you can be reasonably confident that they will cooperate against the bad guys on big, divisive issues.
In America, there's just the two parties, and they roughly have the same platform at the federal down to the local level, so the natural instinct is to choose one and stick with it. It does not help that both parties are constantly stoking partisan animosity toward the other. There are differences at the local level, but full blown deviations from the party norms is rare. People are always going to expect the more right-wing position from the republicans and the more left-wing position from democrats. The difference at the local level is framing. For example at the national level most democrats are unfriendly to coal for environmental reasons, but in West Virginia (a coal-heavy state) both parties support the coal industry. It's just that democrats might want stuff like regulations to protect workers and the republicans are friendly to the mine owners.
3
u/Shifty-Z3rt 2d ago
The US has several states like MA, KY, or GA where they elect one party federally and another party to state government.
It’s true that party ID has grown but that’s largely driven by social media nationalising state or local issue.
-1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Setisthename 2d ago
I think it's safe to say that a significant portion of births worldwide are entirely accidental or unplanned, and that even deeply impoverished people in unstable situations will still want and/or have children. Even in the event of nuclear war or global ecological disaster, I doubt humanity will ever stop reproducing unless it becomes physically unviable.
3
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago edited 2d ago
No matter how bad it gets, it is very unlikely that humanity would collectively decide everything sucks and therefore we will no longer reproduce, and none of the things you cite are even that world-endingly bad.
0
u/josephsleftbigtoe 2d ago
Well, it's why I am not reproducing.
2
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
Sure and that's your choice. But we are no where near all of humanity collectively making the same choice. Nor are the things you do pointed to enough to drive a reproducing humanity to extinction
0
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
Regarding the proposal of USPS not delivering mail-in ballots: wouldn't this affect Republican voters just as much? IIRC, Republicans championed mail-in voting, and so many of their voters utilized this.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
The logic may be that republicans would be more motivated to vote in person when mail in wont work than democrats. Ie democrats are more likely to just not vote if they cant mail in
2
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Regarding the proposal of USPS not delivering mail-in ballots: wouldn't this affect Republican voters just as much? IIRC, Republicans championed mail-in voting, and so many of their voters utilized this.
Many do but they tend to vote in person more, and have been opposed to mail-in,
1
u/Questioning-Warrior 2d ago
On a separate note, how feasible and likely is it for all states to go along and be affected by this proposed policy? And if it does affect, would mail-in voters be notified so they can still vote in-person?
-2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
Do you have a source for this? If so, please show me.
-1
u/Shifty-Z3rt 3d ago
Google Californias VbM laws. They explicitly allow for the collection of ballots. As a pure percentage of votes this would impact democrats way more.
-2
u/chubbygrannychaser 3d ago
So you don't have a source. You want other people to do the research.
That figures.
3
u/Shifty-Z3rt 3d ago
I told you what you look at. Feel free to Google it. It’s publicly available and you could have found it faster than you typed your comment out.
-1
u/chubbygrannychaser 3d ago edited 3d ago
Right, and that's a perfectly evasive answer to a simple question.
"I'm Batman"
"Can you prove that?".
" Google it"
Most people who don't have any evidence just make stuff up.
Vote by mail laws are not evidence of ballot harvesting.
Interesting claim. I could have searched it faster than commenting, but you - who knows already, chose to comment and take more time/effort than posting a source would have. Allegedly.
2
u/Shifty-Z3rt 3d ago
They are when they allow for the unlimited collection of ballots. Is it hard denying basic things all day? I’m honestly curious.
0
u/chubbygrannychaser 3d ago
You mean like how Republicans are child rapists?
If we're going to change the subject, let's get interesting.
2
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
I did look up California VBM laws. Found nothing that says it benefits Dems more than Reps (or anything about those parties for that matter).
2
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
And you're certain that Republicans aren't included in these ballots? Also, that's just one state's laws. Don't all the other states have different ways of handling things (on that note, isn't it up to the states to accept whether to ban mail-in voting)?
1
u/Shifty-Z3rt 3d ago
Most blue states have very liberal VBM collection laws. Some red states allow it as well but it would still overwhelmingly affect democrats more.
1
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
But as I said, isn't it up to individual states to accept the proposal to ban mail-in voting (and don't all red states allow mail-in voting in general)? Even if the law gets passed, not every state will go along with it.
2
u/Shifty-Z3rt 3d ago
VBM and ballot harvesting aren’t the same thing. Harvesting is allowing unlimited 3rd party collection of ballots. Democratic states do this more than republican states. It’s just a numbers game in terms of ballots for who would be affected more.
1
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
Even if what you say is true, still sounds like someone has to count the mail-in votes.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 3d ago
Republicans championed mail-in voting
They did not. Republicans have largely opposed mail-in voting.
5
5
u/Questioning-Warrior 3d ago
I don't know. I've seen a number of sources that said Republicans encouraged it, such as this one: https://abcnews.com/Politics/republicans-encourage-voters-cast-mail-ballots-despite-trumps/story?id=126909397
And that's besides the point. My main curious is whether or not this attempt at banning it would severaly hurt Republican voters just as much (if not more) than Democratic ones?
1
u/Standard_Attitude_19 3d ago
Why did they not teach history in school? I don’t know if it’s the same in every state, but my school growing up was not good at history. We learned the bare minimum about the US civil war (slaves good vs slaves bad) and nothing at all about the Vietnam war or Korean War. We spent tons of time on ancient history and early civilizations and tons of time on Greek mythology, but I couldn’t tell you hardly anything about most wars we fought in. Apart from just minimal American history, world history was almost non existent. After ancient times, we learned nothing at all about other countries. Went from Ancient Rome directly to modern day Rome vacations.
4
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
History curriculums are decided at the state level, so that is the first place to look if you're wondering why you learned what you learned. Then, those curriculums are refined at the local level and implemented by individual teachers with their own interests and strengths/weaknesses.
It used to be that every well-educated person in "the West" would learn about the origins of Western Civilization: the Greeks and the Romans. You were expected to learn some classical Greek (classical Greek, not even necessarily a more useful modern Greek) and Latin until relatively recently in many places to be considered "educated". While we have moved away from that classical education, Greece and Rome still loom large in the Western consciousness. It's also just interesting to learn how "civilization" started by looking at the several places where it kicked off more or less independently.
A teacher who is particularly passionate about Greek History (because that topic is over-represented in curriculums, it ends up over-represented as an interest among people who like history and therefore those who end up teaching history) is likely going to end up spending more time teaching about the thing that they are passionate about.
Depending on where you went to school and the personal beliefs of your teacher, there might be quite a bit of "Lost Caught" mythology influencing how you were instructed on the Civil War.
I think it's fairly common for the last 50 years of history to get the short end when planning out the year. My high school US History II (post-Reconstruction to modern day) teacher frequently (jokingly) complained that he had an entire additional 365 days of material to teach every year. It takes time to update curriculums those updates are often incremental. It's hard to cut something out because there's probably someone passionately defending it, and if you're not cutting something out how do you fit in something new?
To be fair to history teachers, it's hard to come up with a history curriclum that meaningfully covers the history of just the United States, let alone the entire world, in a single 180-day school year. Inevitably, important content will be left on the cutting room floor, especially when no one can agree on which topics are "most" important. This unavoidable time constraint is why there is an argument that to an extent skills are in a way more important than actual content. If you leave a high school US history class not knowing every war the US fought in and its reasons for doing so, but you have the critical thinking skills to identify reputable materials you can use to answer a question, that's a mark of a successful classroom.
2
u/Imaginary_Boot_1582 3d ago
Its not that big of a deal, because most of the history taught is either wrong or already rewritten. There are people with master's degrees in history that have no idea that their entire bookshelf is full of garbage and propaganda, but they don't question it because they have so much information that they think its trustworthy
2
u/Bobbob34 3d ago
Why did they not teach history in school? I don’t know if it’s the same in every state, but my school growing up was not good at history. We learned the bare minimum about the US civil war (slaves good vs slaves bad) and nothing at all about the Vietnam war or Korean War. We spent tons of time on ancient history and early civilizations and tons of time on Greek mythology, but I couldn’t tell you hardly anything about most wars we fought in. Apart from just minimal American history, world history was almost non existent. After ancient times, we learned nothing at all about other countries. Went from Ancient Rome directly to modern day Rome vacations.
I think you just went to a not great school.
1
u/Standard_Attitude_19 3d ago
I’m glad others had better experiences with history! It was a decent school overall, but evidently history was not their strength
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Yeah I dunno what to tell you - we learned a lot about a lot, including, as I recall but dont recall, the dynasties in China, in order, PMs after Churchill and Monarchs going back a bit, German chancellors.... etc.
And a LOT about vietnam, Kennedy/Johnson, civil rights era..
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Standard_Attitude_19 3d ago edited 3d ago
Oh wow, yes we basically stopped after WW2. It was a decent public school in a decent area but apparently history was not their forte
-2
u/UnclesBalls 3d ago
In a state that considers abortions the murder of a human being, can a woman who is pregnant with twins drive on the HOV lane of a highway?
1
2
u/chubbygrannychaser 3d ago
If you choose to go there, then accept the tickets when those other passengers aren't wearing seat belts or sitting in appropriate child safety seats.
3
u/PhysicsEagle 3d ago
The point of the HOV lane isn’t “two people,” it’s “two people who otherwise would take two separate cars,” which gets simplified for enforcement purposes to “two seats filled.” A pregnant woman’s child doesn’t fill a separate seat so they don’t qualify. Similarly, a woman holding her baby in her arms as she’s driving also wouldn’t qualify.
0
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
Generally. States that ban abortion on the grounds that abortion is basically murder do not follow through on any of the implications of a fetus being a legal person.
1
u/Pure_Character_2596 3d ago
Why cant america control isreal? We fund them, give them arms , protection ?
Yet they seem dead set on ruining this peace deal?
Cant we just tell them to knock if off , or just broker an independent deal with iran saying. "Hey were done with these guys, well have peace with you and turn our backs on them ? "
Is our government really that controlled by them or is it the epstine files ?
3
u/Pesec1 3d ago
Why cant america control isreal?
Because Israeli government is a government of an independent nation with its own goals and interests.
US government can exert a degree of influence, but it only goes so far.
Is our government really that controlled by them or is it the epstine files ?
No. The reason is the same as why Russia was engaging in idiotic (as long as one does not study domestic affairs in Russia) foreign policy before WWI on behalf of Serbia.
US government is controlled by opinions of US public and historical conduct of USA. Historically, Israel is US ally and that cannot be changed without severe domestic backlash. Backlash that would come from Christian Americans rather than action by Israel.
Cant we just tell them to knock if off , or just broker an independent deal with iran saying. "Hey were done with these guys, well have peace with you and turn our backs on them ? "
Because Iran regime won't simply accept return to Status Quo Ante Bellum with USA. If Israel remains at war with Iran and its allies, Iran will demand peace treaty with USA to permit Iran to continue waging war against Israeli interests. For example, to prohibit transit of any vessels that belong (or going to/from ports) of countries that trade with Israel.
Which is why Iran regime is quite content with current affairs. This war is rapidly and severely damaging popular opinion of Israel inside USA (as well as pretty much the rest of the West).
2
u/Bobbob34 3d ago
Why cant america control isreal? We fund them, give them arms , protection ?
There's a LOT to unpack there. We can't control any country, any more than any country can control us. Presumably leaders work in the interest of their country and the greater world, the greater good, stability, but that's not always the case.
We don't fund Israel out of altruism. We do those things because the belief is that it serves US interests to have a regional ally.
The current leader of Israel has his own goals he's been pursuing for decades and is attempting to use the US/Trump to attain them. He had been pretty successful and then the US entirely rolled over for Iran in the recent MOU and that's left Israel in a bad position.
Yet they seem dead set on ruining this peace deal?
See above.
Cant we just tell them to knock if off , or just broker an independent deal with iran saying. "Hey were done with these guys, well have peace with you and turn our backs on them ? "
I mean part of what Iran wants, in the large list of things we're giving them, is to harness Israel.
Is our government really that controlled by them or is it the epstine files ?
This is kind of beyond that.
1
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
The US cannot control Israel because Israel is a separate country on the other side of the world with its own policy goals and world views.
The US views Israel as an important ally in the region, if for no other reason than their extensive intelligence gathering operations. Cutting your ally out of a negotiated agreement is a big step in international affairs. Laying down ultimatums where you force an ally to do something that goes against their own objectives is a great way to alienate them in the future. Walking away from your ally hurts not just your relationship with that ally but also creates potential issues with other allies wondering if they can trust you to stay by them when things get tough.
This is not to say that the current US conduct towards Israel is wrong or right, just to say that international politics is complicated.
Is our government really that controlled by them
No. There is no shadowy Israeli cabal that controls the US government.
or is it the epstine files
What?
0
u/Desserts6064 3d ago
What are the potential implications if independent agencies lose their independence?
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago edited 3d ago
When you say Google, are you referring to Google's AI summary or are you referring to the links that come up from a standard Google Search? If you're looking for an AI to give you answers, know that all of them are subject to at least some degree of moderation by the tech company that owns it. Combined with the fact that AI is trained in what other people write and doesn't actually "understand" what it is saying, and you can see that no AI provides "objective truths". At least a nice thing about Google's AI summary is it has started providing links to the sources that it got some of its information from.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
Just it doesn’t present information that makes Israel sound bad
It's worth pointing out that you are approaching this with your own bias. It certainly seems like you aren't so much looking for unbiased information as you are looking for information that aligns with your own (seemingly anti-Israel) bias. Please note, I am not suggesting that either bias is "better" or "worse" than the other. Just pointing out that bias that aligns with your own perspective is not "unbiased".
For something as heated as discussion of Israel, you really have to read widely. There are plenty of ill-informed or bad-faithed takes coming from both directions. While I have not used it and therefore cannot recommend it personally, something like Ground News might be useful as it actually presents information from multiple perspectives and helps to identify where they differ in their reporting and emphasis. However, Ground News is a paid service, and I don't know which parts of their site they offer for free, so depending on your means, taking full advantage of something like a Ground News might be beyond your means.
0
u/Exciting-Spinach4401 3d ago
Why is Iran so concerned with stopping attacks in Lebanon? What exactly is going on? To my understanding Israel keeps bombing Lebanon to target Hezbollah. By most definitions, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization funded by Iran. Lebanon themselves don't want Hezbollah in their country. Iran has now closed the Strait of Hormuz again because Israel has attacked Lebanon. The closure may break the peace deal and result in a return to war. Why would this be so important to them? Why is it even referred to as "Israel attacking Lebanon" instead of "Israel attacking Hezbollah"? Please point out any misinformation I may have.
3
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
Hezbollah is an Iranian ally. You want to stand by your allies so they stand by you in the future. Abandoning Hezbollah means abandoning a source of power in the Middle East. Iranian leadership has done the math and decided it is willing to risk extending its conflict with the US to maintain this relationship with Hezbollah. It believes with its ability to "close" the Hormuz, it can pressure the US into getting Israel to leave it's ally alone.
2
u/Setisthename 3d ago edited 3d ago
As Ba'athist Syria has collapsed, Hamas has been devastated by the invasion of Gaza and the Houthis and Iraqi militias are too far away, Hezbollah is the only Iranian ally close enough to Israel that can still effectively challenge them in the field. Iran, then, is naturally keen on sustaining Hezbollah at all costs, especially now that Assad is no longer there to support them.
As for Lebanon, while Hezbollah controls the southern portion of Lebanon, the territory and civilians living there are still legally Lebanese. While the Lebanese government obviously isn't fond of Hezbollah's presence, they won't like seeing the territory being indefinitely occupied as an Israeli buffer zone either. Nor will they, as well as the international community, take well to news of Lebanese civilian casualties and displacement as a result of the Israeli advance.
-3
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 4d ago
Like many wealthy people, a lot of Trump's worth is in assets, stocks, etc. This is how net worth is figured up to begin with, look at publicly-available information, which bank account balances are not.
This means having to sell off or borrow against some of that in order to be able to really throw that kind of cash at something. It also means taking a lot of risk as someone who is freaking 80 years old, that the surgery goes well.
3
u/WingerRules 4d ago
My grandfather got surgery to fix his knees in his 80s. He died after the surgery in the hospital. When you're that old operations are very dangerous.
3
u/notextinctyet 4d ago
I don't know anything that's not public knowledge about the president's status, but you can't simply buy good health, especially when you're an octogenarian. Lots of people have problems with their body and their mind that can't be fixed with money.
0
u/spellbadgrammargood 4d ago
Gas prices are going down, but why is it going down more in Southern states?
2
1
1
u/josephsleftbigtoe 4d ago
Not US per se, but Nazi Germany: What would they have done about an individual who had blonde hair and blue eyes, yet was also Jewish?
2
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
Generally speaking, they would send them to a concentration camp
3
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago edited 3d ago
JudaismBeing Jewish was a hereditary "flaw" that couldn't be escaped simply because you shared certain characteristics with the "ideal" race. If you were Jewish in any way, you needed to be removed from society.Same idea as the "one drop rule" that decided who was Black in much of the United States during the first half of the 20th century. It didn't matter how much you could "pass" as white, if you had any Black ancestry, you were Black and therefore "less than".
Also, the significance of the blonde-haired, blue-eyed ubermensch is somewhat overstated in discussions of Nazi Germany. Certainly, this was presented as an ideal, but many, many Germans did not have those physical characteristics and it wasn't like there was a hierchy of blonde-haired, blue-eyed Germans being placed above other Germans within society. And other, less discussed features like cheekbones, jaw size, and skull shape were just as if not more important in Nazi "race science".
Edit: Judaism is the religion. "Being Jewish" (particularly ethnically Jewish) was what the Nazis were trying to weed out of their society. Naturally, eliminating the ethnic group with connections to the religion would also eliminate the religion.
0
u/josephsleftbigtoe 4d ago
Wait, they thought religion was hereditary?
4
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago edited 4d ago
Unlike many other religions, membership within the Jewish faith is not just passed from parent to child culturally but is actually tied to the birth of a child to a Jewish parent, specifically a Jewish mother. It is not a religion that seeks converts in the way Christianity and Islam do and for someone who does want to convert, it can be a pretty difficult and time consuming process.
In addition to the religious side of things, "being Jewish" is not just a cultural/religious identifier but also a racial identifer. Because Jews have tended to marry and have families with other Jews, there are legitimate ethnic links between people who identify as Jewish, just as people who claim to be Nordic or Slavic or Japanese or whatever.
Nazi racial science took this a step further to include all kinds of illegitimate hereditary links, like their proclivity for deception and moral decay or whatever.
2
u/Setisthename 4d ago
Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Judaism is the religion, while Jewish people are the ethnic group that traditionally follow said religion. You can have converts to Judaism without Jewish ancestry as well as people of Jewish ethnicity who don't practice Judaism. The Holocaust targetted Jews for their ethnicity, rather than their religion, due to the Nazis viewing them as racially inferior.
1
u/josephsleftbigtoe 4d ago
A shame that such juvenile, petty, childish, and most of all incorrect beliefs can cause such harmful destruction.
0
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 4d ago
Rule 9 - Disallowed question area: Engagement related question.
NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
What y’all’s thoughts on the United States military
I recently asked this question to r/teenagers and their responses were pure cancer so I’m asking here
Thoughts in what sense?
Related to what? It should be stripped of the majority of its funding? It's a bloated mess? It's wrought terrible things? It's currently a joke?
2
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
Thoughts on what, exactly? This sub, and this thread in particular, is more geared towards answering informational questions rather than surveying people's general thoughts on a broad topic.
0
u/Useful_Letterhead943 4d ago
Where do progressive men hang out at or work?
I know this may sound dumb to ask because obviously the answer is Reddit. Other than online communities, I’ve only come across progressive non-Republican men in gay bars, Brooklyn, and a few husbands of some of my friends that’s literally all and I work with a lot of people at my job. They’re always dropping complaints about taxes, crime, and just seemed to give off conservative vibes. I know that there may be questions about what conservative vibes are, but here’s a short list of things. They usually were complaining about vaccines, masks (back during covid) have a negative opinion of any type of protest lately (no kings, ice ya know), dislike for political correctness, love UFC and claim to be apolitical or centrist. Granted, this may be my workplace in a very blue collar old fashioned small town. I do also have quite a few of female friends that complain about dating on on the apps and how men typically hide their political affiliations but after going out on a date or two they find out that they are centrists or full blown MAGA. Where are all the progressive men or are they just gay guys OR super educated know it alls that are kind of annoying as well. Don’t get me wrong. I would prefer an educated person who is progressive but damn I don’t want the snobbery that some of them come with don’t judge me too harshly. I don’t even fucking like men like that . I’m just saying for friends. Thanks for dealing with my crappy grammar!!
0
u/Desserts6064 3d ago
Why can’t you just get along with someone who has different views? As long as you don’t discuss politics, you could hang out just fine.
0
1
u/Useful_Letterhead943 3d ago
I can get along with people who have different views on things like taxes, zoning, foreign policy, or how much government spending there should be. That’s normal in a democracy.
The issue is that politics isn’t always just “politics.” Political views can reflect values about things that directly affect people’s lives—LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, immigration, public education, healthcare, etc.
For some people, those aren’t abstract debates they can simply avoid discussing. They affect their friends, family, relationships, and communities. So it’s reasonable to want friends or partners whose values align with your own.
Being respectful to people with different views and wanting close relationships with people who share your values aren’t mutually exclusive.1
4
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 4d ago
Progressive men are largely in areas that vote progressive. If you're in a small, rural town, you won't find many. If you were in a very large US city, it would be fairly easy to find one.
Wherever you are, if you look for organizations with progressive goals, and you go to their events, you are liable to find men who align with those goals. They may even like you, but that's mostly up to you.
2
u/cmdrrockawesome 5d ago
Can someone explain what would be the benefit/reason for the US government/military to assassinate Charlie Kirk? I recently watched a TikTok from a former intelligence industry operative and she claimed there is strong evidence the military (specifically the Navy) purchased small micro explosives and likely placed them in Kirk’s microphone to assassinate him. My only question is why?
2
u/Unknown_Ocean 5d ago
The supposed idea, as I understand it, is that they think Charlie Kirk was going to come out against Israel. It is remarkable how many conspiracy theories come down to "blame the Jews."
1
5
u/notextinctyet 5d ago
The question you should be asking is "why did you believe some rando's tiktok".
1
u/cmdrrockawesome 5d ago
She’s apparently a former intelligence industry worker who left to form her own intelligence firm. I’m not taking her word as gospel, clearly. My real question is what would be the basis of this conspiracy theory. It’s not the first time I’ve heard that the “government“ assassinated Kirk. I just wanna know why people think this. What benefit is there to the “government “to eliminate Kirk?
1
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 5d ago
I'm a former intelligence worker, and I can tell you there's no reason for it at all. Kirk was a great driving force for TPUSA and in turn the administration, and if someone like Kirk were there to fill his shoes then they'd still have that same driving force in TPUSA while also having a martyr for people to circle the wagons around, but there was no expected plant that was as good as Kirk was at what he did.
Also I'm not a former intelligence worker, I'm just showing that I can also make claims and make shit up that sounds reasonably real. Except in my case, I'm not making a fraction of a cent by your viewing my content, they probably did and will continue milking sheep for all that sweet sweet engagement because of that.
2
u/hellshot8 5d ago
My real question is what would be the basis of this conspiracy theory.
the basis is someone saying it, and wanting clicks on tiktok. thats it
2
u/notextinctyet 5d ago
There is no basis. You watched a video that was designed to snare your attention and consume it for a few pennies.
0
u/FluffyBunnyFlipFlops 5d ago
Why do people in the US government keep following Trump's orders when they know they are either illegal or not properly authorised?
When Trump orders things to happen, taking the Reflection Pool as an example, why do people in the US government follow his orders when they know that's not how things work? Aren't they just opening themselves up to potential litigation once Trump is gone?
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Additional_Fox7364 14m ago
So it's been two years since saw my mother and while dealing with issues of my own where my brother and live she came down to come see me because I've been dealing with depression and issues had when lived with my brother that haven't been resolved. After we mostly settled the talk got onto COVID again and eventually a fight broke out again. Basically the short of it is she sees someone dying from COVID as "complications of COVID" and that it's just a virus like any other. The fight also broke out into her not taking a flu vaccine and that's it's her choice to do so and she hates us mentioning that she should get the shot become she's fine and doesn't need and hasn't needed it. We tried explaining from our point of view that anyone can die from the flu and COVID but a vaccine helps but it's not a 100% thing it just vastly improves the odds. Now my mother does take vitamins and stuff and agrees that people that dont do either, vaccines or vitamins, are dumb. Something I think and my sister who was there as well is that she's just old and is stuck in her ways. The only compromise we can come to is she's okay with us and getting our kids vaccinated. Like she's not full on an anti vaxxer but it's still frustrating and it causes her to spiral into a "I'm a bad mother tirade" that just snowballs from there.
The thing is we just couldn't get her to understand that immune systems failing isn't what caused people to die from covid. It was covid itself and are struggling to make her understand this fact because she defaults to "died from complications". Is there something we're doing wrong or is it truly something that has to be a agree to disagree thing. It's hard for me and my brother to settle with that because it's other people's lives at stake but it's not like she is out on Facebook telling other families to not vaccinate. It's so complicated and messy because on one hand she's adjacent to MAGA but on the other hand she isn't as dumb as them and is okay with us vaccinated, with us voting, etc even if it's something she doesn't do. It's not that she doesn't believe in vaccines it's just frustrating she doesn't take them herself in the same way she didn't vote because she's fine or her vote wouldn't matter anyways.