176
As a Canadian, it's like I'm watching an alternate reality develop, and I'm afraid it's going to infect us...
Don't worry, you'll get your own front row seat next year if Poilievre wins.
When. He's the worst party leader Canada has had in decades, and very popular it seems. People will vote for him because they're frustrated with the effects of their Conservative provincial governments and too ignorant to understand this.
It will. With how Pierre Poilievre is doing in the polls, I wouldn't be surprised.
Trudeau is a wet rag and Singh suffers from an image problem. Quebec is going to vote for the Bloc and the Parti québécois and a referendum on Quebec Independence will probably be triggered.
This is one reason why the "leave the country" people are so off. There's a notable rise in far right wing nuts all over the world. Even if Poilievre loses, you'll still have a very large contingent of people who thought he had good ideas.
No, running away isn't going to solve it. I do understand that some people are in danger, and leaving might be their best option. For the rest of us, no.
All you "we got through Trump last time, we can do it again, it's not that bad" people:
Notice how the picks this time are significantly crazier and more dangerous? Yeah we fucking told you it's different this time, and it absolutely is. I hope you all get fucking rabies.
We are on Day -67 on a second Trump administration.
We already have:
- An anti-vaxxer with self-proclaimed brainworms as HHS secretary, given as part of a deal for him dropping out of the Presidential race.
- An alleged sex trafficker who is under investigation for various crimes including having sex with minors as AG, giving Trump an AG that will do his bidding without having to go through a Saturday Night Massacre since Trump can just use the trafficking case as leverage to keep him in line.
- An ambassador to Israel who believes Palestinians don't exist.
- Demands from Trump that the Senate immediately go into recess upon Trump's inauguration so Trump can appoint "recess appointments", amid reports that several potential picks are too extreme even by some far-right standards.
- A "government efficiency czar" or whatever term he made up for it headed by a man who has already said he intends to cut the budget by $2 trillion and inflict hardship on poor people "for their own good".
- Several prominent GOP figures admitting that they were lying about Project 2025 all along and there's no reason to lie about it any more since voters can't do anything about it now.
- Judges across the country pausing J6-related cases, citing the inevitability of Trump pardons for the rioters.
.
Bribery is now legal. The corruption is now blatant and open. Lies are now worn as a badge of honor. The winners are saying the corruption will continue and is now the new normal. They have seized control and have purged anyone who would have dared to speak up, let alone do anything about it.
And remember, we're not even on day one yet. There's still a little over 2 months before the Trump HateTrain 2.0 really takes off.
This isn't going to be pretty.
Denier, not skeptic. Skeptics are rational and respond to evidence and argument.
Not that the media care, but they always over-dignify these fools.
Draining the swamp directly into his cabinet.
Scuttlebutt is already record breaking retirements across most federal agencies for January, and there's going to be lots more that try it but dip out after a few months. And I'm not talking people discussing the possibility, I mean the process has already started.
Which is a really bad thing...
A lot of the goverment is perpetually understaffed, and all these ultra conservative department heads are just going to do hiring freezes, keeping it even smaller.
Republicans don't have to cut government staffing when everyone always runs away rather than stay and do what they can.
Republicans sure as shit don't resign when a Dem shows up. They stick around and obstruct what they disagree with and try to maintain any ground they can.
To be fair, the Dems don't have candidates to threaten or promise murder for the other party.
Oh ok...
You're right, historically it has been best to bow to far right extremists making terroristic threats so the only members of the government are ones that agree with them.
/s
Did you know we've literally tried that before?
It's what ended reconstruction and was the original mission of the KKK.
People did what you're supporting back then, it worked out fucking horribly. Seriously, people taking your current advice back then is one of the forks in the road that led to the current fucking shit show. But first it led to Jim Crow laws and massive civil rights setbacks. Because people cowed to just not threats but actual murders.
I swear, the vast majority of the reasons we can't fix the same problems, is people refuse to remember how many times something has happened, what failed last time, and why we shouldn't keep fucking doing it over and over.
And I'm not coming down on you personally, it's just no one knows this shit anymore.
Fighting isn't easy, we don't just get to sit on the couch and make social media comments and call it a day.
You want to actually do something to help the government resist?
You might not want trump to be your boss, but again:
Fighting isn't easy
If only trump sycophants work in the US government, he'll break a lot more shit
Did you reply to the wrong comment by chance? Or am I getting a shellacking for my laziness?
Yeah, kind of went on a rant there...
I think I took your comment as rationale for Dems who resign from the federal workforce in "protest".
But now I'm thinking you meant that's why Republicans don't.
If that was the case, then yeah I misunderstood and my comment would seem like it came out of nowhere.
I was getting at making the point that Republicans don't leave because they're not threatened. But I also get the emotions and fervor. I'm with you. I feel it and I wouldn't take it away. It might be the only useful tool we've got
From what I've heard... he said he won't ban vaccines, but things can change.
I hope Cheryl Hines divorces him soon... unless she thinks she can coerce his decision-making.
Vaccines are unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies. If he defunds the research and production of vaccines they will vanish even if they are not banned. There are just so many ways this idiot can and will kill us all.
And all the babies they so care about
The babies are precious human lives from nut to birth. After birth they are disposable fodder.
I hope Cheryl Hines divorces him soon… unless she thinks she can coerce his decision-making.
He's been humping Trump and saying the crazy shit for months now. She's either one of the dumbest, most oblivious women on the planet, or she supports this bullshit.
The only other plausible explanation I have heard is that her divorce lawyer has her staying quiet. I'm kind of assuming she's a two faced cunt for now
Hes gonna put some radioactive stuff in vaccines then say "See, told ya vaccines are bad!"
Ok, so hear me out. What if Trump really is the anti christ, and that makes RFK Jr the horseman Pestilence? The other three are hard to say. War might be Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, but there are other candidates.
Interesting thought, but there are a few problems with this:
- The antichrist was supposed to be a genius military tactician. Trump isn’t a genius anything.
- The biblical Armageddon wasn’t meant to be a prediction of the distant future, but was prophesied to happen within the lifetime of the original apostles, so 2,000 years ago.
- The general scholarly consensus is that the Nero was meant to be the antichrist, and that the whole story was descriptive rather than prescriptive.
It’s a fun theory, though.
Get ahead of the curve and give yourself worms now.
I’ll be a liiiiitle surprised if even the GOP senate allows him through
Yeah this sucks, but on the other hand, it'd be much harder for Vance to 25th Trump if Trump's cabinet are all personally-loyal toadies.
That's what I'm choosing to believe, anyway.
The thing is, trump is more crazy and more likely to try launching a nuclear weapon than vance. Democracy wouldn't matter when everyone is dead.
I honestly don't know if I prefer "everyone dead" or "living in Christofascist hellscape".
¿Por que no los dos?
But have you considered that both sides bad?
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
176 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19244 readers
3169 users here now
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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS