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
If you've been following rightwing media watch for a minute, this should be obvious to you.
And to the three comments yeeting the baby, just stfu.
This move from Tucker is about Tucker. You may, and rightfully should, despise Tucker Carlson. But you should not underestimate Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson has always, and I do mean always (for practical purposes) has one of the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics. He was one of the first to get on the America First wagon, and saw the potential Trump represented in national politics in 2015. They understood this because they had the ability to read the room with regard to the latent frustration people had with both Republicans and Democrats in that time period.
Tucker sees where the motion is and anyone who isn't a totally ley read of politics has known that Mike Rodgers is an extremely poor opponent to be going up against El Sayed. Tucker doesn't want to be on the wrong side of a losing election. Simple as.
This gives Tucker access and to be on the side of motion. America First and MAGA are shifting. Myself and others have been making this point for a while. Hogs don't lead. Pay attention to the first movers. Trump's base will move on to where the first movers go. Owens, Carlson, Fuentes, pay attention to where these actors go and you'll know where things are heading.
This is Tucker setting up for a 2028 run. It has almost nothing to do with El Sayed other than not being tethered to a floundering brand. They're setting themselves up to be the savior of MAGA in 2028.
Good read on Carlson. He's politically very powerful just due to his political compass being so accurate about the current direction things are moving.
He's fake as fuck and will go the direction the wind is blowing.
Well maybe we could agree that the shit pigeon has improved his political compass substantially over time.
I mean the guy used to wear a bowtie on live TV. But this goes to support your second statement:
Absolutely. But nothing about being a fake as fuck fraud stops them in their pursuit of power.
Exactly, all of the current "issues" have gone rotten for the republicans. Support for israel, the Iran war, the economy, and even ICE/immigration have all become losing issues for them. This is Carlsen trying to launder his image and move away from the "MAGA brand," to either run in 2028 or so he can lend his support to Vance.
☝️ this.
He's going to pull a "no true Scotsman" America First thing. Whatever this administration did, that wasn't _America First_™. Whatever it is Tucker is offering is real America First™, and mark it, as Ive instructed many a hater to do: Candice Owens will be his running mate.
JD Vance is a political wet fart and everyone has known it for all of time. Fucking Jeb Bush has more motion than JD Vance does. Establishment Republicans see this as an opportunity to reassert control of the party, but that too will fail.
In the 80s, it was called "family values". In the 90s, they were against "political correctness". In the 00s, "national security". 10s, "Tea Party". Now? Fucking everything. Now they're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
Does this mean that most people aren't falling for it anymore, or does it just mean that something will stick, lather rinse repeat?
There's always something that will stick. Unfortunately, the things that seem to always stick are anti-LGBTQIA+ and anti-foreigner. The 80s were very anti-gay with the AIDS scare and (lack of) response, crackdowns, anti-sodomy laws, etc. The 90s continued that, and added on some extra anti-black since they were becoming quite prominent in sports and popular culture. The 00's added on a nice thick layer of anti-muslim because I guess all brown people were responsible for 9/11 or something? Then the 10's got some more anti-black with Obama and George Floyd, and the 20's with queer/trans people.
Going back we had more cycles like this:
See how insane it is. Someone like Tucker understand it but many establishment democrats don't
Tucker Carlson has a documented history of downplaying Russian aggression, echoing Kremlin talking points, and securing a high-profile interview with Vladimir Putin.
Key Milestones
Everyone reading this should remember the account names promoting this candidate as they are likely Russian bots
If you read the comment as promoting Tucker Carlson, you lack the ability to read. Choosing to not understand your opponent leaves you vulnerable to them. You represent a vulnerability to our collective ability to stop fascism.
This logic is how Trump (the previous Kremlin choice) was elected.
I agree. By refusing to, and failing to understand Trump, and why what Trump was doing was working (or to even acknowledge it was working), Liberals, and Democrats more broadly, set us up for this era of fascism we're in. Its the fault of those who refused to understand their opponents that these easily beatable buffoons have become pillars of the modern political landscape.
Trump won because of election interference from Russia.
Key Evidence and Methods of Russian election interference:
Official Findings
AI sloppo.
And also "Democrats can never be failures, they can only be failed".
Beep boop… Authentication successful! Russian bot verified: TropicalDingDong
Seriously though… calling evidence of Russia’s election interference AI slop… Russian bots don’t get any more obvious than this.
Yes yes yes. Every one who doesn't agree with with you is a Russian op.
We shouldn't try to understand our opponents or why their messages seem to resonate with audiences. No, we instead require "Trump bad" as the first test to ensure loyalty to the brand, then ensure the counter party is pure enough in their support for Israel and blue no matter who.
Surely simply demanding loyalty to a brand which has been objectively disloyal to its voters won't, yet again blow up in Democrats faces.
Nope just those that promote talking points from Russian propaganda assets like Tucker Carlson
Treating Russian propaganda as anything but Russian propaganda is not going to help you understand anything except what the Kremlin wants you to think.
You’re referring to the loses that occurred after verified Russian election interference. But you call that evidence AI slop and instead try to blame the party that Russia worked so hard to prevent from winning elections.
Obvious Russian bot
I mean do you think you are actually convincing any one with these absurd accusations (other than maybe yourself, by shrinking and shrinking the circular nature of your own thinking).
You basically have a toddler level analysis of 2016, and are accusing anyone who has a mature thought as being an "obvious russian bot". That only works on people who also are decrepit, toddler level thinkers.
So if you've gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @UsernameHere@lemmy.world 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren't arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?
One could say that they are looking to split off "liberals" from the rest of the left with this kind of rhetoric. In this sense, they act as a "wrecker" to any kind of populist, leftist movement. Scratch a "russian bad" liberal, and how deep will we have to go to find a zionist apologist, a blue MAGA't, someone promoting the least viable, most reprehensible instincts of the Democratic party?
It does beg the question doesn't it?
Also consider the fact that if this post were being brigaded by bots that you would see anyone suspicious of the bot’s talking point to have some counter argument being made against them trying to steer the narrative.
These comments that are reasonably skepitcal of Tucker Carlson would be downvoted by the brigaders and the bot’s talking point would be boosted to the top by the bots because it is easy to outnumber real users with bots.
If the bot’s narrative isn’t a genuine opinion held by the readers you would see multiple real users getting downvoted just like you do throughout this thread.
Seems like you’re implying that Lemvotes somehow disproves the existence of bots and brigading lmao
I'm implying that you are a toddler brained Liberal who's analysis is narrowly focused in a kind of maladaptive reactionary analysis that can't seem to get further than "Trump bad. Trump Russia. Peepee tape."
This is an honestly insane take and your bullet pointy bolded formatting and word choice makes me wonder a few things.
Insane how? Tucker is a Russian asset. He gave Putin a platform and parroted Kremlin talking points.
He has always been a support of other Russian assets like Trump.
It is insane to pretend he isn’t a Russian asset