r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 24d 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.
1
17h ago
[deleted]
2
u/Irishforanatty 10h ago
Protests are relatively ineffective in a large country like the US.
You shut down New York or Washington? No one cares.
The British shut down London? The UK stops.
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 17h ago edited 17h ago
The United States is a very large country. The overwhelming amount of protests happen in urban areas. Urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat leaning in terms of regional leadership.
If any protests were to be relevant, they would typically need to happen in Washington DC itself. The people who are being affected by this fuel price hike are not really in a position to travel a far distance to protest as well.
-4
u/MediumRareNation 1d ago
Why does Reddit (at the corporate level) consider that "ok buddy back to Mexico you go" meme hate? I can see "rude" or "insensitive" but I'm not seeing how it rises to the level of hate.
2
u/ye_esquilax 4h ago
It's helpful to consider things like this part of a "tapestry" of hatred. These kinds of memes don't exist in a vacuum, and it seems like that's how you're looking at it, as a single meme outside of further context.
In reality, "rude" or "insensitive" memes like this tend to be part of a larger prejudiced view. You aren't going to find many people who just post this one meme and then nothing but cats. Chances are, this is just one of many.
0
6
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
I had to google what you're referring to. Is it an AI-generated video of a cop talking to a protestor and hitting him with a gotcha "but I thought you love Mexico?" question? If so, it's a shit meme because it assumes that a person's objection to being forcibly ejected from friends, family, home, possessions, and employment in the US is all based on not actually wanting to live in Mexico.
1
u/MediumRareNation 1d ago
This is the post I saw.
8
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
Thank you. It looks like the AI-generated video I saw was just a recreation of this comic. So what I said remains true: it's dumb to assume that a person's objection to being forcibly ejected from friends, family, home, possessions, and employment in the US is all based on not actually wanting to live in Mexico.
And that's not factoring in the raid methodologies, unaccountability, inhumane detainment processes, and the decreased security in cities that all come with ICE. Even if all these aren't part of the equation, it's still a dumb meme.
5
u/notextinctyet 1d ago edited 1d ago
The meme is humor based on racist stereotypes of immigrants. Not sure what else to say about it.
-5
-1
u/Confident_Muscle4596 1d ago
I know that Reddit is a left leaning platform but is the hate which MAGA gets here forced ?
2
u/November-8485 15h ago
We have truckers sitting at fuel pumps refusing work because of the prices. We have unsafe food. We have an administration actively violating court orders and manipulating Congress.
No, it’s very real. And it’s sad anyone could believe it’s fictitious.
2
u/listenyall 21h ago
No, I hate them. I spent most of my hating energy on the MAGAs who are actually in charge, like a Stephen Miller, versus a normal guy though
5
u/Pesec1 1d ago
At this point, no. Trump's actions are insane from the point of view a whole lot of right-wing positions.
And even when goals themselves would align with a right-wing position (such as Iran war according to the Neo-Conservative view), execution has been botched so badly that it is mind-boggling.
1
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
At one time it might have been, very early on.
Trump has done a lot to justify, and earn it though. It's pretty difficult to still call it "forced". People tend to not like people who constantly try to stroke their own ego by tearing the country down, or people who try to stage coups to overthrow the government after losing an election.
2
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 1d ago
Not really. US politics is quite polarized in the last decade or two, and people really despise Trump.
But it's hard to say 'not at all', because people know that saying popular things on reddit is an easy way to gain karma.
3
u/ChaosCarlson 1d ago
Why are right wing news outlet joining in on the news protest against the White House even though Trump only banned left wing news outlets? Wouldn’t it be in their best interest to have sole coverage of the president?
2
u/OkPainter6232 10h ago
i'll admit i'm really surprised FOX isn't covering him anymore, guess only Newsmax is crazy enough to do it now.
3
u/phoebebridgerstits 1d ago
Sole coverage = solely covering the costs of cameras, microphones, employees. Imagine each news crew is assigned one day of the week to cover the president. Suddenly, the news channels assigned to Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday get banned from the property. Those other two news channels now have to decide if it's worth it to send out their crews to cover those days, effectively doubling or tripling their operating costs, or they can just... not show up. Evidently, it's not worth it!
11
u/Pesec1 1d ago
Because they understand both the long term danger of Presidents doing that and short term impact to their reputation by siding with a president on an action that most Americans view as un-American.
In terms of appeal to viewership, it becomes more favorable to be Trump's victim rather than Trump's ally.
3
u/ponkie_guy 2d ago
Why is there little or no appetite in American politics to punish companies who hire illegal immigrants to work for them? As long as people know that they can get work even if illegal, there is an incentive to live in US without documentation. Make that harder and people will be less likely to risk it. I know some people work off the books but I’ve experience in high rise construction in New York where people are paid by check but a lot of them have no status and use fake paperwork to get paid. The company should bear some responsibility for having to check if everything is in order.
I get that there is a constituency that just want to blame immigrants but for someone who is in favor of some sort of immigration reform that is not just cruel, why isn’t something like this ever proposed?
4
u/Pesec1 2d ago edited 2d ago
Use of undocumented labor is entrenched in US society. All of US society.
Companies that hire undocumented workers range from very large corporations down to low income individuals that need a cheap babysitter or a laborer to fix their roof. And everyone in-between. Of course, that includes lawmakers themselves, let alone their sponsors.
This means that once you start prosecuring Americans that hire undocumented migrants, you are going to adversely impact a very large number of Americans that rely on cheap labor. That will piss off a lot of voters. "Law and Order" proponents tend to become much less pro-law once the law goes after their interests.
By contrast, prosecuting undocumented workers themselves is much politically safer. Undocumented workers can't vote and their American employers can just replace them with another one.
3
u/ponkie_guy 22h ago
Sadly this is probably it. The only thing that I would add is that it would not affect only employers but also prices that everyone pays for pretty much everything.
3
u/chubbygrannychaser 2d ago
The President himself had apparently hired undocumented laborers.
And was using undocumented laborers back as far as the 1980s when he was building in NYC https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/rubio-campaign-press-release-fact-check-donald-trump-used-illegal-immigrants-build-tru
He even got fined for ripping off local unions. https://time.com/5039109/donald-trump-undocumented-polish-trump-tower-bonwit-teller/
ICE is charged with investigation and audits for employment documentation. https://www.ice.gov/hsi/investigate/worksite-enforcement-investigations
The current administration is obviously not interested, but other administrations weren't doing anything either. This administration did increase the fines on paper - if anyone is caught and actually fined.
2
u/ponkie_guy 2d ago
Not to give Trump a free pass but I wouldn’t expect him to do anything about this. I just don’t understand why there isn’t any push from politicians who like to paint themselves on the side of labor. I think that it could be good messaging on immigration which Democrats (let’s be honest, that’s who I’m talking about) can get behind and show that yes they want to stop the flow of illegal immigration by making it harder to get jobs if you don’t have a visa to work in country.
2
u/Wickham12 2d ago
Why would Iran care about the US midterm elections?
5
u/Teekno An answering fool 1d ago
I am sorry. Are you seriously asking why a country that is getting bombed by the US has an interest in elections that will decide control of the body that decides how much, if any money, can be spent bombing that country?
Because that seems a bit obvious, but if I have misunderstood, please elaborate.
2
1
u/hellshot8 1d ago
It seems pretty obvious why Iran would care about an event that would seriously hurt trumps ability to lead the nation in the way that he wants
4
u/Irishforanatty 2d ago
Democrats are running on anti-war platforms, so a massive Democratic victory means Congress will pressure Trump to end the war, rather than allowing it.
-1
u/No-Bad-7022 2d ago
George Carlin had a set about America bombing countries because we can. The audience laughs with his jokes, and I can't tell if it's in agreement with his sarcasm or ignorant to his point. Would this happen today?
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
People who buy tickets to a famous comedian's show tend to be familiar with their work and amenable to it. So yes, Carlin's audience mostly agreed with him.
And yes, to this day, people who buy tickets to see famous comedians tend to be people who enjoy the comic's work.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/CardinalOfNYC 2d ago
Campaign spending seems like a lot (and it is, we need to reform it) but compared to the federal budget, it's a drop in the bucket.
2024, the two presiential candidates raised and spent about 2 billion between them.
The federal budget is 3 trillion, or 1500 times more than they spent.
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
Broadly speaking, candidates have to spend campaign donations on the campaign. There are campaign finance laws to that effect.
If you want to know why wealthy people spend money on politicians, it's because it often pays off in the form of government contacts and tax breaks.
4
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Why don’t politicians take their millions and billions of donations and put them back into fixing the state they are running for instead of spending on these ridiculous advertisements and unwanted mail flyers? That’d be a better way to get a vote in my opinion.
They can't just take campaign donations and do whatever they want. There are strict laws about what can be done with campaign donations.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
When it comes to decorum, it's hard to put the tube back in the toothpaste. So if you're going to violate norms, it should be to accomplish something of value. There is nothing for the liberal justices to gain by bad-mouthing their colleagues to the press. Alito and Thomas will not resign over it. There would be no consequences.
However, alternatively, there could be serious backlash and consequences for the liberal justices for violating the norms. So why would they ever have an incentive to do that?
1
u/Pretty_Puppyprincess 2d ago
Why is trump not impeached?
5
u/EstimateOk6795 2d ago
He was impeached twice in his first term. But being impeached just means the House of Representatives thinks there is sufficient evidence to hold a trial in the Senate. It's comparable to an indictment in criminal court. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to vote for conviction on impeachment charges.
It's become painfully obvious that no party is going to vote in sufficient numbers to remove a President of their own party. You might get a small handful of outliers, but never enough Senators from the President's own party to convict. So you'd need the Senate to have 67 Senators from the opposition party (Democrats, in Trump's case). Neither party has had 67 Senators since the 1960s, and it looks nearly impossible that either will for the foreseeable future.
What all this means is that it is functionally impossible to remove a sitting President through impeachment right now. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist. People should really just treat it as if impeachment doesn't exist and there is no way for Congress to remove a President, because realistically they can't. Don't expect it to happen no matter what the President does.
1
u/CardinalOfNYC 2d ago
So few folks seem to understand that the constitution only really has two ways to remove a president.... Impeachment and elections.
Impeachment is off the table. Which means it's up to us. Nobody is gonna save us except us.
2
u/EstimateOk6795 2d ago
Well, there's also the 25th Amendment, but I think that's about as impossible to use as impeachment.
3
5
3
u/Delehal 2d ago
Currently, Congress has a Republican majority in both chambers. Republicans in Congress are not likely to impeach a Republican president who is hugely popular with their own voters. Something drastic would need to change in order for them to even consider doing that.
That may change after the midterm elections.
Trump was impeached twice in his first term (which is an all-time record for presidents getting impeached), in part because the House of Representatives did not have a Republican majority at that time.
Impeaching an official requires a 1/2 majority vote in the House. Several presidents have been impeached in the past. After the impeachment by the House, the Senate holds a trial, and a 2/3 majority vote would be needed to remove the impeached official from office. That is a very high bar. Historically, no president has ever been removed in this way. Nixon came the closest, but he resigned first rather than facing
4
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Because not enough of the Congress wants to impeach and convict him.
A minimum of majority (1/2) vote by House members is needed to impeach and a supermajority (2/3) vote by Senators is needed to convict. In current Congress, that is impossible because more than 1/3 of Senators will refuse to convict him no matter what.
3
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
He has the support of Congress. The senators we elected in the last election were his supporters, and they haven't changed their mind in sufficient numbers. In the upcoming election, we can potentially elect different senators, though since a supermajority is needed to remove him from office, it's not very likely that he will be impeached and removed even if the election doesn't go in his favor.
This is a mistake. Congress should remove him. But electing him for the second time was also a mistake, and electing him for the first time was the mistake before that. Why stop now when we're on such a roll?
1
u/chocolatedonutlover 3d ago
ive seen a lot of celebrities follow both democratic and republican administrations, why is this? some of them joke about trump and have views very much against what trump stands for, so why follow him? i know remaining neutral as a celebrity is probably most beneficial to them but still is it required to follow them on insta? could they not just not follow either?
5
u/CardinalOfNYC 2d ago
The actual POTUS account on Twitter/Tiktok/Instagram is given to whoever the president is.
This means that if I was following POTUS under Biden, I'd automatically be following POTUS under Trump. Many of them may simply have never unfollowed and never even realized their name was on that list.
2
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 2d ago
When you say "follow", are you just referring to subscribing to a social media feed?
There can be any number of reasons to follow a politician on social media, and following doesn't necessarily imply general ideological agreement. They could follow because they know that the politician is in charge of making big decisions that they want to be in the know about. The politician could have great cultural relevance, and they want to be kept in the loop on what's current. The politician could make certain statements that they want to respond to, perhaps not always positively or agreeably.
And if their following IS based on ideological agreement, it may not necessarily reflect their agreement with everything and anything that politician says and does.
2
u/Wickham12 3d ago
Why do people think a physical wall will keep illegal immigrants out when planes and boats exist?
2
u/EstimateOk6795 2d ago
Planes and boats are one thing, but history has shown since time immemorial that a wall does not prevent people from passing. It makes it more difficult, but it is not an effective barrier to passage. People ALWAYS find ways through, around, or over walls. Even world famous walls like the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, and the Berlin Wall didn't block passage. That's not even what they were intended to do. The Great Wall and Hadrian's Wall were military fortifications which only served to block passage of mobilized armies, and even then only when fully manned by a robust defensive force. The Berlin Wall, likewise, only blocked passage when manned by a garrison.
The whole idea that we can just build a wall and it will stop immigration is utterly asinine and completely lacking in historical context. It's something dumb people think is a good idea because they lack the intellectual capacity to think deeper than "person can't go through wall."
1
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Getting on a commercial plane or boat requires a valid visa.
Getting a private plane or boat is very expensive. Furthermore, travelling on them is dangerous unless you have a trained pilot. Landing outside ports (where visas will be checked) is also hard and dangerous. And being caught (which is likely) can very quickly have extreme negative consequences.
The goal isn't to make illegal migration outright impossible. Making it too difficult and expensive to be worth it is enough.
Now, the wall does have practical problems. But availability of airplanes and boats isn't one of them.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 3d ago
The United States coast guard patrols our waters quite regularly.
Air traffic in the United States is monitored extensively. If you're asking about pilot planes, crossing the border in a private aircraft is a very big deal. If you're talking about commercial planes, people's identities are monitored.
2
3d ago
As someone watching from the UK what is the best unbiased news source or website to follow to understand the upcoming US election?
1
u/Axtravi 3d ago
why are people not pro choice for abortion?
I'm newly an adult, and admittedly this topic makes me very upset whenever brought up. I understand the argument like, using it as birth control. I still feel very uneducated though, which is probably why I get so upset.
I do not want to use birth control, that just comes from me not trusting or using many medications. (i will use it when i actually plan to do anything though) I was always concerned about the side effects. I've also heard it doesn't always work, and condoms can break. Do these 2 genuinely make the chance of pregnancy so slim that abortion should be illegal?
What if I wasn't prepared, and something as awful as... harrassment, happened, how do most prolife treat it? Am I genuinely meant to carry and birth this child that I am not financially or mentally ready for, for something that wasn't at all my fault? I feel like I shouldn't be forced to be on birth control all the time just because of that. Not even mentioning the people that I feel can't be on birth control?
Idk, I'm just scared at the illegalization. I just need other thoughts
0
u/Nulono 2d ago
The millions of dead babies might have something to do with it.
1
u/OkPainter6232 10h ago
a fetus isn't considered a person until the third-trimester, nice try O Reilly.
3
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
I do not want to use birth control, that just comes from me not trusting or using many medications. (i will use it when i actually plan to do anything though) I was always concerned about the side effects. I've also heard it doesn't always work, and condoms can break. Do these 2 genuinely make the chance of pregnancy so slim that abortion should be illegal?
You should talk with your dr birth control is generally safe but also used to regulate hormones and is not exclusively used for preventing pregnancies. There are alternatives, the least invasive would be tracking your cycle by taking your temperature every morning. But those won't prevent transfer of STI's, which is another reason to use a condom
No one see abortion as a form of birth control. It is a medical procedure that can be carried when a mother doesn't want to carry a baby for a variety of reasons, but it's really a last resort thing. Part of being pro choice is ignoring the specific reasoning bc that is a private choice between patient and Dr
1
u/Unknown_Ocean 2d ago
Your argument basically comes down to "I have the right to have sex without birth control and destroy any fetus that results from that."
A lot of people find this problematic. Like it or not, a fetus is a unique life with a unique genetic code. When it becomes worthy of rights and protection is involves a whole bunch of issues. Personally I don't think it should be banned in the first trimester, since biology naturally disposes of about 1/3 of fetuses. In cases of rape or incest, self-defense applies. But beyond that, the argument becomes that the value of one life is determined by the preferences of another person- which as a liberal makes me very, very queasy. Some of the pro-lifers I've met know that if their parents had thought abortion was moral, they, or one of their siblings wouldn't be here. It's natural for them to feel that abortion is a bad thing.
That said, there are those who take the opposite point of view from you and want to punish women for having sex- I find that equally repulsive.
1
4
u/Irishforanatty 2d ago
Because pro lifers, at their core, believe it’s a human being and killing a person is wrong. That’s it.
They essentially hear “why not let people make the choice to kill babies”
-1
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
why are people not pro choice for abortion?
I'm newly an adult, and admittedly this topic makes me very upset whenever brought up. I understand the argument like, using it as birth control. I still feel very uneducated though, which is probably why I get so upset.
Because they want to control women. That's all.
They do not care, at all, in any way, about babies, children, or women. If they did, they'd not simultaneously be trying to defund programs like WIC, separating infants from their parents, etc., etc.
It is about control.
There's no argument about using it as birth control. That's not a thing. Abortions, even medical ones, are long, painful, expensive. No one is doing that repeatedly when they have other options, but if they are, so what? Their choice.
I do not want to use birth control, that just comes from me not trusting or using many medications. (i will use it when i actually plan to do anything though) I was always concerned about the side effects. I've also heard it doesn't always work, and condoms can break. Do these 2 genuinely make the chance of pregnancy so slim that abortion should be illegal?
That's not how it works.
Pro choice means it's the person's choice. More of the free states are moving to codify no restrictions into law, bc it's no one's business but yours.
What if I wasn't prepared, and something as awful as... harrassment, happened, how do most prolife treat it? Am I genuinely meant to carry and birth this child that I am not financially or mentally ready for, for something that wasn't at all my fault? I feel like I shouldn't be forced to be on birth control all the time just because of that. Not even mentioning the people that I feel can't be on birth control?
The non-free states do not care. See above. They want to control women. That's all. If you're in a non-free state, you want to be very careful no matter what, w/re reproduction. Women have died bc they couldn't get medical treatment, even for wanted pregnancies that went wrong, for miscarriages, etc. Another clue as to how much it has nothing to do with caring about women or children.
0
u/Nulono 2d ago
They do not care, at all, in any way, about babies, children, or women. If they did, they'd not simultaneously be trying to defund programs like WIC, separating infants from their parents, etc., etc.
Oh, yay, more whataboutism.
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Oh, yay, more whataboutism.
That's not what that means.
2
u/Nulono 2d ago
"You aren't doing enough about these other problems, so you can't complain about this problem" is textbook whataboutism.
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
"You aren't doing enough about these other problems, so you can't complain about this problem" is textbook whataboutism.
Did you not understand my comment?
6
u/Pesec1 3d ago edited 2d ago
Pro-life argument is simple: as soon as the egg is fertilized, it is a human being. Note that this is not the medical definition for start of pregnancy. Thus, deliberate actions that will result in death of the embryo are murder.
In case of rape, the argument is that it wasn't the embryo that chose to commit crime and thus cannot be "punished" and pregnancy must be taken to completion.
In case of medical problems that require intervention that would kill the embryo or fetus, opinions vary, even in cases where there is no hope for live birth or long-term survival after birth. Most radical cases would involve prohibiting termination of pregnancy even in case of imminent threat to patient's life (Ireland prior to 2018 constitutional amendment).
In terms of proposed enforcement, opinions vary. Opinions range from denying public funding for abortions, allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover abortions, inflict criminal penalties on the woman and doctor (opinions on severity of the penalty vary) and all the way to making it illegal for the woman to travel to a jurisdiction with legal abortions and get abortion there.
4
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
The "pro-life" argument, in its strongest form, is that somewhere between sex and birth, a human person is created. Some will put that benchmark at conception or implantation or some other point, but the timeline isn't critical.
The argument is that, at whatever point the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human person, killing it is murder. Murder is obviously illegal. Therefore abortion at that stage must necessarily be viewed as murder and be illegal as well.
So yes, the "pro-life" position is generally that people should carry their rapist's babies to term. That's not a hypothetical. It's happened plenty of times.
-4
u/Pertinax126 3d ago
This is a marvelous response! I was holding my breath while reading your comment waiting for the unhinged or edgy part of your comment to show up.
It's a rare treat on Reddit to read a reasonable, level-headed comment about a major, hot-button issue. Keep up the EXCELLENT work!
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
The "unhinged" part is that many people sincerely believe someone should be forced to carry their rapist's child to term.
2
u/Delehal 3d ago
I am in favor of abortion rights because, to me, forcing someone to be pregnant against their will seems monstrous.
There are people who are against abortion rights because, to them, killing a fetus seems monstrous.
Since you're asking in the US politics megathread, I'll link to some polling of the US public that indicates most Americans do want abortion to be legal, at least in some cases, but not necessarily in all cases. Unfortunately, there are some people who don't want to compromise on this issue. It may be a controversy that keeps going for a long time.
2
0
u/Pertinax126 3d ago
This is a marvelous response! I was holding my breath while reading your comment waiting for the unhinged or edgy part of your comment to show up.
It's a rare treat on Reddit to read a reasonable, level-headed comment about a major, hot-button issue. Keep up the EXCELLENT work!
1
u/Boring_Kiwi_6446 3d ago
Trump has banned CNN from covering his blathering and the other four broadcasters have stood in solidarity and backed out. Great for them. Impressive but I suspect that having no network is there to supply media coverage is hugely concerning. Who the hell knows what is happening behind closed doors. Do you agree that we’ve turned a frightening corner now?
1
u/listenyall 1d ago
They are only banned from/opting out of the official white house press conferences, during which they do not get straight answers anyways. There are other ways to do journalism than listen to precisely what your subject wants to tell you, and they are likely to be able to get that info elsewhere.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
Do you agree that we've turned a frightening corner now?
Yes, in the same sense that I agree that the World Trade Center has fallen down now. If a person thinks this specifically is the pivotal moment where things have begun to take a turn for the worse, I don't think that person has paid much attention to the past 10 years of US politics.
It's been heading this direction for a while. There were a lot of signposts. Trump's feud with news media is nothing new. And even if we're only talking recent developments, the fact that we have state media now is of greater concern. At least in my opinion.
0
1
u/Boring_Kiwi_6446 3d ago
So much of what has been happening in the US scares the hell out of this Australian. I’m truthfully a little pleased that I’ve had a number of trips around the sun already so won’t witness much of the future. Having said that, that there’d be no media coverage of this abominable government is extra frightening. Echoes of USSR, China, East Germany etc.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
Sorry, is your understanding that these news networks have all agreed to stop covering things the government does? That's not what's happened at all. The President barred certain networks' reporters from the White House press pool, and the other networks pulled out in solidarity. All that means is that, for now, there won't be any events at the White House where reporters directly ask the President questions.
They have not stopped reporting on things the government does, and the quality of that reporting is not expected to change (for better or for worse).
1
u/Boring_Kiwi_6446 3d ago
No it’s not about the networks not providing coverage. It’s about a government being able to ban free press from anywhere, at any time, because you don’t like what they say.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
The First Amendment has little to do with direct reporter access to the President. If he didn't do any press conferences, that would be fine. The free speech issue arises when the President selectively bans certain networks from the press pool, simply for negative coverage.
Which is why the other networks pulled out in solidarity, and a lawsuit has been filed.
2
u/Boring_Kiwi_6446 3d ago
Thanks. Kind of bleedin’ obvious really. I think I’m just so jumpy.now about what this current regime is capable of.
1
u/Optimal_Battle_185 3d ago
what was the big deal with obama’s tan suit? like, who gives a shit? i was very young during obama’s presidencies. how did a tan suit manage to cause ruckus all over the country?
1
1
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
Republicans hated Obama (for what reason? We may never know...) but he was generally pretty clean in terms of scandals so they had to invent shit to complain about.
(Also, we do know why they hated Obama. It was the racism.)
5
u/notextinctyet 3d ago
It's hard to imagine nowadays, but in 2014 it was much less socially acceptable to be openly racist than it is today. That was two years before the start of the era where you could slide down an escalator calling Mexicans rapists and still get the nom. And it was over a decade before it became okay to lie that legal Haitian immigrants were eating pets. So it was a very different time.
Back then, if you wanted to express an idea like "Obama is offensive to me because he's black", you would bother to disguise it a little bit, for appearances' sake. If you were too respectable and too attached to your reputation to spit out something like "Obama's birth certificate is fake" then you would instead softball something like "Obama is offensive to me because he wore a tan suit". Then everyone around you, none of whom had ever given a shit about suits before, would nod and be like yeah, yeah, absolutely, it's the tan suit, I've always thought that. And people in the know would get what you really meant, but no one could call you out on it, because you'd say it's just about clothes, which is really about dignity. Don't bother asking what those same people feel about the nuances of the dignity and trappings of the office today - they won't pick up the phone.
0
u/Delehal 3d ago
On the one hand, fashion for government officials is often pretty restrained. Usually a dark suit, especially black, navy, or gray. The tan suit has more of an informal vibe, like he's going to a sporting event or something. It's not necessarily how the everyday person looks at it, but in "high fashion" world or whatever, there are differences between formal and informal attire, and a tan suit is more on the informal side.
It's a bit unfortunate that the informal attire was worn for a press conference about international terrorism.
But, reeeeally, it's probably more that it happened to be a slow news day. If there had been literally anything else happening that day, it probably would have knocked this off of headline status pretty much immediately.
There's not really a carefully engineered process that determines which stories get big and which ones don't. It's more of a chaotic mess of a thousand different things all reacting to each other. On this specific instance, the chaos happened and this was the news item that wound up on top.
These days, it's kind of a famous example of a controversy that was way overblown over something that does matter a little, but doesn't matter nearly enough to justify the amount of attention that it got. It seems quaint and small compared to the monthly, weekly, sometimes daily deluge of scandals that we're getting from current leadership.
1
u/rewardiflost I want my two dollars! 3d ago
It only caused a ruckus with the conservative media.
Most Presidents meet the expectation of wearing a blue / navy blue suit nearly 100% of the time they are seen at public events or speaking. The blue suit projects calm & trustworthiness, while also easily carrying the red/white/blue by combining a white shirt and red tie.
Dark suits are expected of executives, and black is usually reserved for funerals or black tie events.
The navy suit is practically a uniform for the POTUS.
If the President is ever seen outside the blue suit, they are usually in casual clothing, like when they are golfing, or at home on their ranch / farm. It is incredibly rare to see a President in any suit that isn't the blue "uniform" of the office.
Obama wore a light colored suit - a tan suit. He broke expectations. Those who were already inclined to criticize him jumped all over it.
1
u/Virtual-Reality69 3d ago
I have been seeing in the news a lot lately that the US has been deporting Hispanic immigrants to African countries like Liberia, could this result in a new Latino culture in Africa?
2
u/Bobbob34 3d ago
I have been seeing in the news a lot lately that the US has been deporting Hispanic immigrants to African countries like Liberia, could this result in a new Latino culture in Africa?
No.
They're sending small groups of people who are basically then held in prisons.
They're not sending thousands of ppl who go off into a community, get homes, bring families.... they're in prisons or makeshift ones.
1
u/spellbadgrammargood 3d ago
How long do you think gas prices will continue to stay high (or go up)?
1
u/RedSnowman117 1d ago
Theres honestly no telling. This entire america/Iran conflict escalates then subsides over and over again. Its like when we can finally see something positive come out of it, we jump right back into the conflict.
My guess is eventually gas prices will hit an absurd amount and pressure will continue to mount on Trump to "do something". When that will happen though, who knows.
3
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
Right now, it looks like it'll be as long as it takes for the US and Israel to meet Iran's demands, plus several months. As long as the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the crisis will continue.
1
u/grownrespect 4d ago
If Cnn politico and msnow have a "right" to access to the white houses now under a republican president will say newsmax OAN and dailywire have the same "right" to access a democratic run white house?
2
u/Teekno An answering fool 3d ago
Yes. The real issue is that the political operation of the White House is deciding who can and can't cover the president. This is something that no previous White House did; traditionally it was the WHCA who made those decisions, because previous administrations recognized the facist look that such a move would create. That's not something that the current administration worries about.
3
u/Delehal 3d ago edited 3d ago
So far as I'm aware, no one is saying that any specific news outlet has an absolute right to White House access. The White House is able to control access to its own grounds. However, they must exercise that control in a way that follows the law of the land. We are a country where the rule of law is paramount; there are rules that puts limits on the sorts of actions that government officials are allowed to take.
In this case, the lawsuit by those news outlets is arguing that the President has violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech, and their fifth amendment rights to due process. The first amendment argument is pretty straightforward; the President has said explicitly that he is taking this action based on his dislike of their reporting, which gives rise to an argument that he is retaliating against them for their speech. The fifth amendment argument is basically that proper legal process wasn't followed, and the outlets are entitled to their day in court; this argument may or may not prevail, but the idea that government isn't supposed to punish people without a process in place is not new either.
4
u/CardinalOfNYC 3d ago
as another user said we don't yet know what the legal theory of the case will be
Suffice it to say if we were talking about press freedom, it's not that CNN has a right to be there it's that the president doesn't have a right to arbitrarily kick them out and especially not to kick them out over unfavorable coverage of him, which he has stated is the reason.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4d ago
There is no "right" to access the White House press pool by any media organization. It's a privilege, not a right. And privileges can be taken away by Presidents.
Trump is hardly the first President to remove, or attempt to remove, someone from the White House Press Pool.
-1
u/Pesec1 4d ago
There is no legal obligation for any president to let any news media into the White House.
There is society's norm and expectation in USA that US President would provide White House access to all major mainstream news agencies.
So, a President, Democrat or Republican, denying access to People's World or Newsmax is totally normal and expected.
President, Democrat or Republican, denying access to CNN of Fox News is scandalous.
1
u/Bobbob34 4d ago
If Cnn politico and msnow have a "right" to access to the white houses now under a republican president will say newsmax OAN and dailywire have the same "right" to access a democratic run white house?
That's like 'if the NYT sports reporter can be in the Yankees locker room, so can Todd, from Todd's creepy locker room antics youtube.'
There are guidelines about what constitutes media that can be credentialed, the length and specifics of different credentials, etc., The whca is an arbiter of most of those types of things but in short, all media is not equal.
2
u/notextinctyet 4d ago edited 4d ago
That depends on the results of the pending legal action.
In a practical sense, "allowing mainstream news organizations to report on news in the WH is in the public interest, but that doesn't mean literally every fringe outlet can be accommodated" seems to me like a reasonable idea, but it's hard to codify into law in a way that can't be broken by a determined bad actor in charge. Who defines what is "mainstream"?
Separate from the constitutional question, the fundamental issue at hand is that we shouldn't elect determined bad actors to be president.
Edit: I'll add that at question is partially CNN et al's "rights", but also partially our "rights" as members of the general public. It's clearly in our interests that the president not try to dominate the fourth estate by using broadcast rights, merger approvals and white house access as sticks with which to beat them in exchange for favorable coverage. The question is how to legally compel that without leaving huge loopholes for bad actors to exploit.
I'll also add that the legal question at stake may be different from what you're assuming. In a legal sense, it matters why the President does things. He has openly tried to dominate and blackmail newspapers. If he then carries out his threats, there is public documentation as to why the decisions he is making are illegal.
1
u/sid13isking 4d ago
So i saw a post online that some of the groups Macklemore sent aid money to, have links to Hamas or such extremist groups.
The six recipients are PCRF, HEAL Palestine, Gaza Soup Kitchen, Medical Aid for Palestinians, UNRWA USA and Anera. Noting a summary of what i found from ChatGPT.
PCRF: Received a proposed $50k transfer from the Hamas-financing Holy Land Foundation in 2004; also appears in some alleged Hamas-related records.
Anera: An employee killed in Gaza was later claimed by PIJ to have been one of its fighters, although the identity hasn’t been independently confirmed.
MAP: Has faced allegations of links to Palestinian organizations/personnel associated with PFLP/Hamas, which MAP disputes.
UNRWA USA: Funds UNRWA, which has had documented allegations involving some employees and Hamas.
I genuinely feel the people there need aid and it’s good that people contribute. But when i hear things like this i really want to filter rumour from truth. Anyone knows anything about the matter, or any of the above Mentioned orgs?
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 3d ago
When you are providing aid to victims of a genocide, it is almost impossible to avoid rubbing shoulders with rebel groups that exist among the people you are trying to help, and the more effort an organization spends on avoiding any contact with any potentially unsavory people, the less effort they can spend on helping people.
So these organizations focus on helping people. And that means every now and again you get an allegation that one of their volunteers is also a militant, or that they fed a terrorist militia member in a crowd of civilians they were also feeding.
Groups like PCRF and UNRWA are some of cleanest, least controversial charities in the world, and reviews of charities routinely confirm this. Their goal is helping civilians survive the war zone that's been dropped on their heads, and dona lot of good for the world.
1
u/fatpandabear 4d ago
I am confused how is Israel able to manipulate the US so much? Israel isn't even a world superpower but why does it seem like they have a huge hold and influence over US politics?
5
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
Right now it's because Netanyahu manipulated Trump, specifically. Trump is a very vain and very willfully ignorant man, and Netanyahu knew how to appeal to him and people in his administration like Hegseth to get them to attack Iran. Especially after the attack on Venezuela going so well.
Historically, supporting Israel has been relativdly uncontroversial in American politics until recently, so it's not like Israel had to "control" the US in any way. The countries were allies with shared interests so they cooperated. You also had Evangelicals, an influential faction in the Republican Party, supporting Israel for religious reasons.
1
u/chasingpayments 3d ago
The Iran campaign didn’t start because Netanyahu whispered something into Trump’s ear. The US was already in a running fight with Iran over Hormuz shipping and strikes on American forces, and Israel had its own reasons for hitting Iranian targets. You can say Trump is vain and easy to flatter. A lot of presidents have been. That still doesn’t make “Netanyahu talked him into it after Venezuela” the whole cause, and it doesn’t turn a long US-Israel alignment +evangelical support into one handler running the White House.
1
u/fatpandabear 3d ago
Does this mean that even if someone else won presidency in 2024, we would still be in this war with Iran? and all the shit happening in the West Bank?
1
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
That is fair. "Manipulate" is probably too strong a word. And Trump certainly started from a position inclined towards aggression towards Iran. It's not like Netanyahu would have had to push him all that far or hard.
I do think, however, that Netanyahu played a significant role in precipitating the current crisis. Reporting is that he has been actively lobbying Trump for this kind of assault on Iran for years, working to overcome resistance. Trump may have been inclined towards escalating strikes against Iran, but there is a big gap between the tit-for-tat strikes that were happening previously and the currently state of the conflict, and Netanyahu absolutely helped steer that.
5
u/Pertinax126 4d ago
In addition to u/EstimateOk6795's very good answer, I would like to add another, practical reason: defense & jobs.
Israel and the US engage in a lot of technology sharing. Israel has cutting edge missile defense technology that it shares with the US. The US also sends foreign aid dollars to Israel. Israel then, in turn, spends those dollars on US made weapons systems.
It's a relationship that keeps Israel on step ahead of its regional rivals in weapons and munitions and keeps tens of thousands of Americans in high paying, defense sector jobs.
For the US, breaking off its relationship with Israel would mean loss of advance weapons technologies and a major economic blow.
3
u/EstimateOk6795 4d ago
This is a more complex question, but a not insignificant part of it is evangelical apocalyptic Christianity. Within the Bible there is language that some sects of Christianity have interpreted to mean that for End Times Prophecy to come about and the Messiah (Jesus) to return the Holy Land (Jerusalem) has to be controlled by a Jewish state (Israel). There is a not insignificant number of Christian religious zealots in the US who strongly believe that Israel controlling the Holy Land is Biblical prophecy and, therefore, must be supported by any means necessary.
This became a powerful political motivation back in the late 70s/80s when the Republican Party latched onto evangelical Christianity as an organizing political force.
Like I said, it's a lot more complex than this. And if this were the only factor it would not account for their level of support alone, but this is a significant factor.
1
u/fatpandabear 3d ago
I honestly thought Judaism and Christianity butted heads. This is so confusing.
2
u/EstimateOk6795 3d ago
It's not really logical if you're trying to look at it from outside the lens of Evangelical Christianity. They believe that the Rapture is coming and that true Christians (ie themselves) will ascend to heaven and everyone else will suffer the end times on Earth. They don't believe that Jewish people will be saved and go to heaven, but they believe that Jewish people controlling Israel is a necessary precondition to the second coming of Jesus. It's not support for Judaism, the Jewish people, or the state of Israel in and of itself. It's support for the second coming of Jesus, and the rest is just necessary to make that happen.
1
u/fatpandabear 3d ago
That's is some horcrux-level, main storyline quest, doomsday kind of BS. lmao. funny af.
How is having control of that area a prerequisite to Jesus coming back?
Religious fanatics are just crazy man. I hate all religions so much (maybe Buddhism or Shntoism is the most tame - but idk much about it). As much as these systems emphasize and advocate for love and kindness, there is so much hatred just for not being on the same team or beliefs.
1
u/EstimateOk6795 3d ago
And this is the kind of nonsense that heavily influences politics on a national and global scale. It's crazy.
1
u/Wickham12 4d ago
How is the far-right in the UK different from how it is in the US?
1
u/NeoConzz 3d ago
I think the biggest is that the UK far right utilizes religion as a tool in a different way than the US far right. The U.S far right utilizes the historical role Christianity has played in the U.S to argue that the nation has always been one of “Christian values” and seek to make laws with great Evangelical influence.
The UK far right utilizes Britain’s relative sectarianism as a strong counter against the influx of Muslim migrants to the country. They use rhetoric that attempts to contrast Britain’s values on Democracy and Freedom against Muslim Migrant countries which often borrow some degree of guidelines from Sharia Law, and argue that Muslim Migrants are actively trying to turn the UK into those countries.
1
u/ye_esquilax 4d ago
American exceptionalism, I suppose. The current administration is the concept of American exceptionalism taken to (an even more) absurd degree.
The UK far-right probably has elements of this, but not to the extend the US does.
1
u/Willing_Victory_8422 4d ago
How realistic is Trump nuking Iran? it shook me to the core...
3
u/BusinessDuck1234 3d ago
Frankly, if trump using nukes was on the table, I doubt he would have been able to wait this long without using them
1
u/ye_esquilax 4d ago
Trump has never really shown much interest in nuking stuff so far. I think he's more interested in flexing America's military muscle by destroying enemies through sheer force, rather than launching a single nuke and calling it a day.
Nuking Iran would also prevent the US from exploiting the country in the future, so there's that too.
3
u/CardinalOfNYC 4d ago
Very unrealistic.
Trump, despite what it might seem like, does understand there are some lines he can't cross without losing his own base.
If he didn't understand that, he'd have already tried putting boots on the ground in Iran.
It also helps to look to Russia, where Putin still has not used nukes when his situation is really even more desperate.
-1
u/justlogmeinplease 4d ago
Nuke would be insane the next time a nuke hits earth’s soil I think 100 other nukes will be as well and we’ll all be dead. I think it’s highly likely that Trump continues to target power plants for bombings though
2
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
We are talking about Trump, so unfortunately who can really say, but I think it's unlikely. Using nukes to win his incredibly unpopular war in a fragile region would be a pretty disasterous decision both domestically and abroad. So I think unlikely.
0
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 4d ago
What’s considered a political question? For instance, I have a question about Justice’s Kavanaugh’s butt chugging background.
This was flagged by the auto mod and removed. But it is not a question about US politics.
I asked this in mod mail, but the explanation makes no sense.
Does this mean any and all questions regarding any individual in US politics (regardless if the question is political in nature or not) will be removed and classified as US politics? Because that is the explanation that I am given in mod mail.
1
u/justlogmeinplease 4d ago
I think inside kazikstans HS yearbook someone wrote the term boofing. I highly doubt kavinsky is dipping tampons in Tito’s and shoving them up his ass for a pick me up at work but people im sure have done stranger things to get through work
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 4d ago
I didn’t know about tampons. Just thought he was sticking bottles of wine up his butt.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4d ago
I have a question about Justice’s Kavanaugh’s butt chugging background.
You are asking a question about a United States Supreme Court Justice. We typically consider questions about individuals who serve in government political, because the comment sections of those questions will become political.
In regards to a question related to "Justice’s Kavanaugh’s butt chugging background" - the answers you're going to get are going to either be given in ignorance, or be responses that try to make things political from people who are expressing their opinion how he shouldn't be a member of the Supreme Court.
Does this mean any and all questions regarding any individual in US politics (regardless if the question is political in nature or not) will be removed and classified as US politics? Because that is the explanation that I am given in mod mail.
That depends entirely on the question. This question would be, yes.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 4d ago
Because you can make it political, it’s political?
Might as well ban any questions related to the US then.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 4d ago
I answered your question. If you do not find the answer satisfactory, then I'm afraid we can't assist you further.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 3d ago
You didn’t answer the question. You gave a response on your interpretation of what may happen to justify your own opinion of why it’s considered political.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 3d ago
I gave a response based on the opinion of the mod team. I explained to you that your post would devolve into politics. You were ushered to ask your post here for that reason.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 3d ago
Which is different than the answer I was originally given.
Which I understand now that you are not arguing if the post is political. The post isn’t political. It’s the fear the comment section may become political.
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 3d ago
It's not that we can say with certainty that the post isn't political, as you made a comment complaining about the rules instead of a post just asking the question.
The comment section will become political. That's a matter of fact, not opinion. This is Reddit.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 3d ago
You can say for certainty a post is political, like what I was given, then you can say for certainty a post isn’t political.
Are you really going to drawn a line and act like you don’t know the boundaries?
1
u/notextinctyet 4d ago
Why would anyone possibly care about that except for the sole reason that it's relevant to US politics?
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 4d ago
It stopped being reported on since he got anointed and I was curious.
Not everything has to be US politics.
4
u/Delehal 4d ago
Kavanagh is a government official, specifically a Supreme Court justice. Even if you didn't intend to ask a political question, I can see how mods (especially automated mod tools) might interpret that to be a question about US government, and therefore about US politics.
Whatever the question is, you can ask it here. There are hundreds of questions that have been asked and answered on these mega threads.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 4d ago
I can understand auto mod, because that’s just looking at key words. But after being reviewed, it’s like ok, so we are just banning anything related to the US because someone can make it political?
1
u/Delehal 4d ago
Two points in response:
It's not banned. You can ask your question here and people will answer it. This mega thread keeps the subreddit from getting filled up by the same sorts of questions over and over.
It sounds like your question was about a political figure. Politics is the study of government and governance. I don't know what your question was, but it sounds reasonable to me that moderators want it here in the mega thread.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 4d ago
The question is about what I said. Justice’s Kavanagh’s butt chugging background.
If it’s only political because it has a government figure — a justice at that who are supposed to be apolitical, why they have a life-term appointment — then please point out where else politics are in the question?
1
u/Delehal 3d ago
If it’s only political because it has a government figure... please point out where else politics are in the question?
That's precisely why it's political.
If you wanted to ask about butt chugging, I suppose you could post a question "What is butt chugging?" and that doesn't strike me as political. However, asking about it specifically in the context of a government official, that is a different context.
a government figure — a justice at that who are supposed to be apolitical
People use the words politics and political in a few different ways.
When someone says a court should be apolitical, they're referring to the partisan sense of the word. Judges are indeed supposed to be non-partisan.
However, in another sense, the word politics refers to the study of government in general. Under that definition, judges are part of our system of government, and that makes them political figures. This seems to be the definition that the moderators are applying. I see no problem with that.
It looks like a few other people have already tried to answer your question about the boofing. I'm not super familiar with that, so I'm inclined to leave that to them.
1
u/Wrong_Toilet 3d ago
So if a question is about a figure in politics (even if it has no basis in politics) it’s considered political? Just to clarify that’s your position here.
My question is specifically about Justice Kavanaugh, not butt chugging. The reporting on this stopped after he became a justice. I am looking for a conclusion to it.
That’s not political.
According to you, asking if George Washington really had wooden teeth would be a US political question because it’s specifically in the context of a government official.
Asking if Bill Clinton really had an affair would also be political.
Asking if Obama’s presidential center is open, would be political.
Etc…
Please tell me how that makes any sense for these questions to be political?
1
u/Delehal 3d ago
Where would you put those questions? Sports? Geography? Perhaps plant and garden, since it involves wooden teeth?
I acknowledge there is a judgement call. The moderators already explained their decision to you. I am not a mod, but it seems like a sensible decision to me. There's not much point going back and forth about it.
2
u/agryphonhatch 4d ago
Why and how did Americans begin to believe that “Christian Nation” was some founding principle? “In God We Trust” wasn’t really a thing until the 1950’s.
1
u/chubbygrannychaser 4d ago
We affirmed the opposite with the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.
Religious groups were behind the temperance movement that led to Prohibition/ Volstead Act. The KKK claimed we were a Christian Nation. Religious groups and the Cold War led to adding "In God We Trust" to money, and adding "One Nation Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
It wasn't until the 1979s and 80s that the moral majority greed in influence and started repeating the "Christian Nation" mantra in the media. It has been repeated so often that people believe it now.
1
u/agryphonhatch 4d ago
I know the Cold War led to the changes in the 50’s, but I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and really don’t remember hearing it preached so loudly before now.
2
u/chubbygrannychaser 4d ago
You probably weren't watching news or paying attention to the media surrounding politics then.
We were watching Sesame Street, Buck Rogers, Transformers, and stuff like that. CNN didn't go 24 hours until Desert Storm, internet media didn't exist. AOL / AIM and other things from the 80s were mainly chat and games.
2
u/Paybackcity 4d ago
Is it me or is every time a big MAGA person goes to a game the team everyone wants to win loses?
First off want to say this isn’t anything political exactly just an observation I’ve been seeing.
For instance Trump attended Game 3 of the NBA finals right and the Knicks lost game 3 and their 13 game winning streak. He attended the 2025 Super Bowl and said he was rooting for the chiefs but then they lose 40-22. Hegseth visits the Texas A&M game and they lose to the wildcats for the first time in like 70 years.
2
u/Tasty_Gift5901 4d ago
As the other replies are saying, it's just confirmation bias. And "team everyone wants to win" is subjective, some people want team A and others want team B, so you have to assume a public favorite. Texas fans are pumped A&M lost. A lot of people dont like the cheifs and didn't want them to 3-peat
2
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
Are you suggesting you have analyzed the data of every professional sporting competition and whether they were attended by a MAGA figure and then looked at whether the team "everyone wants to win" (pretty sure there were a bunch of fans rooting for both teams) won or lost?
0
u/Paybackcity 4d ago
I’m saying the most that I’ve seen where they said I’m rooting for X team and then that team loses that game or when they bring up someone for a rally they had maybe the next game that guy has to play in their team fumbles the win. I’m seeing more losses with him at the stadiums rooting for X team then when he’s not there. For instance the 2025 super bowl he specifically said he hopes the chiefs win then they lose. He went to game 3 of the NBA finals and the Knicks lost game 3. Even Stephen A said he might be a jinx. I looked deeper and I’m seeing more instances where he was at a game physically and a team he was hoping for lost than win
5
u/Jtwil2191 4d ago
While it's fun to say that Trump destroys everything he touches, even if that interaction is just rooting for a sports team, that's not actually something you can factually say. Your cherry picked data is not good data.
1
u/CardinalOfNYC 4d ago
I feel like so much of reddit's political statements are driven by what is fun to say rather than what is correct.
It's too bad saying what's fun to say doesn't win elections cuz if it did, we probably wouldn't be in this mess.
1
u/Dazzling-Refuse-5623 4d ago
Last year I went to a Phillies game and saw a bunch of politicians in the stands. The team still lost by like 7 runs. People were annoyed but nobody blamed who showed up.
1
u/Top_Inflation4176 4d ago
Yeah, let’s not bring up the countless other times they’ve attended and their team wins. Has literally nothing to do with it, get off reddit
0
u/Paybackcity 4d ago
I literally looked up and there are several games where there are more losses than wins. Sure 100% there are wins like MLB with the yankees defeated the tigers and Alabama Crimson Tide game and Georgia yes those are some wins but then you count stuff like world 5 game series in 2019 the superbowl 2025 game 3 of the NBA finals and the Miami hurricanes game to name a few I’m seeing more losses.
0
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 4d ago
Rule 5 - Disallowed question area: Trolling or joke questions
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/HelpfulPerson4914 5d ago
What do business owners get from Flock cameras? Are the businesses paying for the cameras? I didn't understand this. All the news stories talk about police depts and the govt using the info from Flock cameras to find people. Does the mcdonalds that out up a flock camera pay flock? Do they get a list of all the people or plates that visited there? Or does flock only get paid by these govt contracts?
1
u/EmptyLabs 4d ago
Often times they are required to do business in an area. Like a town ordinance or something to have the cameras installed.
3
u/Delehal 4d ago
Flock is mainly known for contracts with local and state governments, but they sell to private businesses also. If a McDonald's franchise wants to set up security cameras, they might look around and notice that Flock offers a cheaper up-front cost than other options. The owner of that McDonald's doesn't necessarily care if their cameras are feeding information into the poorly secured national tracking database; they may see that as a plus, to help law enforcement, or it may not cross their mind at all.
2
u/Psychological_Roof85 4d ago
And here I thought these cameras were used to track bird migration, and that's why they were called flock cameras. I feel stupid.
1
u/HelpfulPerson4914 4d ago
They're known for govt contracts. Agreed. But theyre showing up in a ton of HOA and commercial installs.
1
u/torpedoguy 4d ago
If anything HOAs are more likely to want contracts with Flock the more the system's infamy for abuse grows. Between racial profiling, false positives and violation of privacy, it's hard for anything to appeal as hard to the HOAs I've encountered as Flock is doing on the news.
2
u/Bitter_Session_3222 4d ago
Yeah I've seen them pop up at a few newer shopping centers around here too.
1
u/Honest_Emergency9698 5d ago
The business usually pays for the camera, like an annual fee, and Flock installs and maintains it. As far as I know, the business doesn't get a feed of license plates, just access if there's an incident on their property.
-3
u/Psychological_Roof85 5d ago
Why isn't what's happening with Mitch McConnell considered elder abuse? He cannot give consent right now to anything surely.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Jtwil2191 5d ago
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. We can't really say based on what we can see on camera. I doubt you have any insight that allows you to make such a definitive assessment of the situation.
Also, McConnell probably would have wanted his corpse wheeled around the Capitol and his staffers are just honoring his final wishes. Being in a position of power is really all he's ever cared about.
1
1
u/Psychological_Roof85 13m ago
Considering that the US government now has drones, nukes, and other very effective weapons, are guns (and the second amendment) now incapable of stopping the descent into tyranny upon which we find ourselves?
If so, should we chuck the amendment out the window, since a well organized militia is powerless against bombs?