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
You are missing the point being made. There is a difference in how American society behaved following 2016 compared to 2024, a factor in that difference is Trump losing the popular vote in 2016 but winning it in 2024. Trump has more power now in part because he won the popular vote and had less power back then in part because he lost the popular vote. This is basic politics, a more decisive victory confers greater power than a less decisive victory.
I don't think I am complaining, I am describing the situation to dispute the idea that criticism of these third party voters is "moronic", or whatever the original comment was. It isn't moronic to be critical of people who made a bad decision that served to empower Trump. I never suggested anything about Platonic ideal undecided voters, it seems like you are reading lots of things into my comments that are not there. I get the impression that you are not really engaging with my points and just throwing whatever you can come up with back at me.
As I said, this is magical thinking. There is not a legal mechanism holding him in control if he loses the popular vote, and in no way did it reduce his power; he appointed three SCOTUS judges in his first term for fuck’s sake.
Basic politics also says the person with the most votes wins an election, so toss it out if you’re trying to understand American politics. I’m also not sure you should be lecturing me about basic politics if you believe the checks on Trump are how many votes he got and not the other two branches of government
If they “empowered him” by not voting blue in a state that went blue was always going to go blue, why can’t they disempower him by disapproving of him? Is it possibly because approval has nothing to do with what power a politician has, and that Congress and SCOTUS instead hold the reins to power and are simply letting it happen?
No, it must be those dastardly people in blue states who simply didn’t vote hard enough!
The concept of a popular mandate is not magical thinking, and it doesn't require a legal mechanism. You keep misrepresenting my point. Do you dispute that a more decisive victory provides more political capital to the winner? Do you dispute that winning both the popular vote and electoral college is a more decisive victory than winning the electoral college alone?
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, or read more carefully, or maybe you are not participating here in good faith, I don't know. For the record, I do not believe that and never made that claim.
I am not sure if I follow this but yes, disapproving of Trump is to some extent inherently disempowering for Trump, of course. You can see how his capacity to enact his agenda has become increasingly challenged in certain regards due to the decline in his polling, for example. You have candidates he endorsed openly trying to distance themselves from him at this point. We are in a very different political environment now compared to last year. Are you suggesting that popularity doesn't bring with it political capital?
I am asking you to specify what powers of Trump’s were limited by not winning the general vote. Because it wasn’t the ability to sign laws, appoint new SCOTUS justices, or stack the federal courts with judges. So far you have refused to elaborate beyond ‘it would have been worse in his first term’ which is untestable and unprovable. I am forced to conclude he didn’t actually have his powers restricted in any way by the vote, or by his approval ratings.
But hey, who knows, if it drops to a new low for the nth month in a row maybe that will magically make it so that people aren’t getting put in camps. (Not magical thinking though)
Then why the hell are you pissing about the people who have a symbolic vote on the presidency once every 4 years and not the people whose literal job as laid out in the constitution is to balance and check the powers of the president?
This is a dumb question that you wouldn't be asking if you had read and understood my previous comments.
No, you simply don’t like that I came to a different conclusion than you did. Feel free to link or quote which comment you believe has specific evidence of his approval rating or not winning the general election having actually impeded the use of his Constitutional powers in the term where he appointed 3 SCOTUS justices and nearly 300 federal judges.
What I don't like is that you continually come up with these strange strawmen instead of engaging with my actual points.