this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
383 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2698 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Back during the first months of the Trump presidency, then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich made a prescient—if not entirely original—observation about his one-time rival for the Republican nomination: “You don't put an animal in the corner without the animal striking back, [and] you don't put a politician in the corner … without them expecting to strike back at you.”

Kasich was correct in his assessment of Trump’s approach to leading Washington, and it’s a strategy that’s re-emerged as the ex-President faces increasingly urgent risks coming at him from all directions. Luck, it turns out, is a finite commodity. And a ginned-up gerbil can do more damage than a complacent cheetah.

Trump is under indictment in three separate criminal cases and is out on bond. A fourth criminal case out of Georgia could come as soon as this week, and preparations underway in Fulton County sure look like prosecutors in Atlanta are bracing for a chaotic scene. The trials would derail Trump for weeks if not months at the exact time he would need to be pandering to voters. And, despite being atop the polls of Republicans looking to be the presidential nominee in 2024, the risks to both his frontrunner status and his freedom are real enough that it’s sending him spiraling in search of a distraction.

“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” That’s what Trump posted on his Truth Social account over the weekend, prompting Justice Department lawyers to ask a judge in the case involving election interference to issue a protective order. The not-at-all-subtle warning was part of a litany of all-caps threats that brought to mind various unhinged stretches of posts when he used to frequent the platform previously known as Twitter. When Trump wasn’t complaining that he was a victim of a politically motivated prosecution (“WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE IS DOING TO ME IS THE SAME THING DONE BY THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ALL OVER THE WORLD.”), he was going after the U.S. team for its loss in the Women’s World Cup, singling out star player (and Trump critic) Megan Rapinoe for an errant foot: “WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA.”

Sure, Trump’s social-media footprint has never been a particularly sophisticated logic-based realm. But for the first time since he joined the presidential fray back in 2015, Trump sounds genuinely scared, like he finally seems to be realizing his luck may be unique but not limitless. His knack for defying political gravity has been evidenced since his first campaign, when any other nominee would have been felled by the same series of missteps, scandals, and self-immolation; Trump instead somehow rode the fire-engulfed dumpster all the way to the North Lawn of the White House.

Trump has long enjoyed lashing out at those he perceives as insufficiently loyal. No one has been immune, be they real challengers like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or just perceived threats, as were the cases of Pope Francis, George W. Bush, and Megyn Kelly. But these latest attacks, somehow, feel different in a changed environment that no longer guarantees fearful fealty from his rivals. Where he previously launched his rockets with abandon, he is now being more direct to respond to would-be usurpers.

To Trump’s credit, his reflex appears to be more tactical than in the past.

Take, for instance, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the closest thing that Trump has to a rival for the nomination next year. While Trump enjoys a massive lead over the Anti-Woke Warrior from the Sunshine State, DeSantis has been working on retooling a failure-to-launch bid, and it seems like he’s rethinking his deference to Trump. In an interview that aired on NBC News this week, DeSantis for the first time finally stopped pussyfooting around whether Trump won in 2020. "No, of course he lost," DeSantis said. "Joe Biden’s the President." After more than 1,000 days of playing coy games and dodging any declaration about Biden’s legitimacy, DeSantis has finally concluded it is time to treat Trump like the man to dethrone.

DeSantis, who on Tuesday replaced his top political hand, had been walking the line. For months, the default has felt like a backhanded defense of Trump at every turn, living both in contempt and cower of the ex-President. But two weeks ago, during a swing through Iowa, DeSantis subtly jabbed his one-time self-considered patron. “I don’t consider myself to be an entertainer,” DeSantis said in Osceola. “I’m a leader. And that’s what you get for me, somebody that will deliver results.” The ceiling of the distillery where he spoke didn’t collapse, and DeSantis marched on. (Trump, naturally, told a conservative radio host that DeSantis should drop out for the good of the party.)

DeSantis’ footing—and Trump’s counter-punch—has seemed to grow stronger in recent days. Until recently, only former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has been an unabashed critic of Trump’s return to power, a lonely spot but one that is starting to have some pals testing its viability. After all, 78 looming felony charges gives even the most mild of candidates permission to at least raise the question of Trump’s true viability in a rematch against Joe Biden. “This election needs to be about Jan. 20, 2025, not Jan. 6, 2021,” DeSantis said in Waverly, Iowa, during that weekend bus tour.

Similarly, former Vice President Mike Pence—the one who spent four years as Trump’s loyal and self-censoring understudy—has started to rev up his critique of the ex-boss, and thus draw his ire. While Pence has hinted at his antipathy toward Trump and, in particular, his former boss’ conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, the intensity has increased of late. And not coincidentally, Trump has targeted more of his public attacks on Pence, as he realizes that his former vice president poses a real threat to his legal woes, given his first-hand access to the West Wing during the final weeks of Trump’s tour there.

Pence predicted Trump’s realization was coming, telling The New York Times on July 30: “I think we’re coming to a fork in the road.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's beyond my comprehension that the Democrats aren't able to launch a candidate that is better and younger than Biden. I mean, Trump and Biden, are those the best GOP and DEMs have to offer?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand the feeling but personally biden has accomplished some things and has others in motion where I would like him to have 4 more years to complete them. At least he does not roll over at every defeat and comes back at the issues from another angle.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand the obsession about Biden's age. He's done great work and had one of most productive terms in the last century. Look at all the bills he's gotten passed, the judges appointed! He lost some fights but those fights were probably not winnable if some other Democrat were in his place. Who gives a shit if he's old if he's still able to do the job?

Meanwhile it's a statistical fact that incumbents have an easier time getting elected than new people. It would be certifiably insane for the Democrats to put a new person up instead of an incumbent, it would be tantamount to throwing the election away. When the stakes are this high, why would they ever do that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My only concern with his age is his vice presidential pick. Harris is still largely better than any GOP candidate though, so they are certainly in no danger of losing my vote on the generals.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

They are able to but they don't actually care about winning. They only care about keeping their gravy trains running

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The question is which candidate has better chances in the general election? Even if I like a few candidates better than Biden, they would get steamrolled in the general, leaving us with emperor Turnip Dump.