This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] INTERNET_TRASHCAN 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
Here's a challenge.
Name someone who could get to this point that wouldn't also be subject to this criticism.
[–] cointelpro_shill 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
He doesn't support his accusation with anything in the comment, but I happen to agree with it. The right sent him feminist shills to eviscerate on stage, ie Jeb's intern and Fox's Megyn Kelly.
Isn't it kind of strange that a party who gets their votes from challenging progressive ideals, and a network who gets ratings from dumping on liberals, feminists included, would send one after a guy like Trump, with the intent of him being seen in a bad light?
In my mind I just ask, what is more likely, an underdog, or an "underdog"?
[–] tcp ago
You may have a point, but let's admit to ourselves that Trump is far from trustworthy despite the excitement his promises and platform generate.
Also, it's not clear what propels presidential candidates (from the establishment or elsewhere) into the forefront. If you look at comparative advantages over someone like Rand or Ron Paul, it would look like this:
Trump: Media Coverage plus his own brand / cult of personality
Rubio, Cruz, etc: Media Coverage
Jeb Bush seems to have shown that you can't make someone unelectable, electable. However, it seems easy to make someone electable, unelectable.
[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct ago (edited ago)
You're overthinking this. Trump is absolutely establishment, but he's a different establishment. Regan wasn't political establishment - he was media establishment. Eisenhower wasn't political establishment, he was military establishment. Trump is corporate establishment.
Now, think about your reasoning on his motives:
He wants media coverage of his brand, right? Half right. He wants good media coverage of his brand. And the best way to do that is to not suck. More accurately, do a better job than the last 3 predecessors. Granted, that's not a very high bar, but it's worth voting for.
Trump 2016!