this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
309 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19097 readers
6038 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Notice the look on Kim's face.
He probably was containing a shocked laugh like uh wtf is this dude doing lol
it reminds me of bush jr at the inauguration.
Sorry for the lack of pixels (using what was posted + zoom):
It's like that GIF from Veep where she's going "What the fuck??"
Little Rocket Man and Big Cheeto Man
Yep. Absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating brutal dictators while constantly shouting down other democratic world leaders. No pattern could possibly be made of that. No informed characteristics about a person who does so could possibly be derived. No expectations of how the world might change shape if they were allowed to be in the same political space as those people. NOPE.
“I think that President Trump gets along with world leaders,” Vance responded. “And there’s nothing wrong with him complimenting them as people, if it makes him more effective diplomatically.”
So you’re saying there is something wrong with it?
Also, Trump indiscriminately worsened international relations for the US for years, if not decades. While he simped for every dictator he was made aware of, he simultaneously dismissed, insulted, or tried to needlessly strong arm its allies. I'd argue he was a worse diplomat for the country than GW, and that's a low fucking bar.
As a European, way worse than GW. GW was bad, and there was a lot of shit going around with him trying to drag NATO into unjust wars of aggression, Trump basically made NATO seriously prepare for a future where the US is not a member.
This means a lot of things, from simple things like NATO might not buy the next American fighter jet that might tie them to an unstable country with military logistics, to more complicated and far-reaching ones like Europe not giving a flying fuck about US-China relationships and potentially being a neutral/independent party on that front.
If the US can't recover - and I'm not saying it can't, the 2016 Trump presidency might be referred to by historians as the point where the US jumped the shark on being the sole superpower on Earth. Wonder why tankies are shilling for Trump.
On the other hand, if his goal was to sabotage the United States on purpose, he did a magnificent fucking job of it.
Before Biden was elected, he wouldn't be able to pass any meaningful legislation in the first 2 years, because his primary focus would be to rebuild this country's reputation on the world stage... because of what the previous guy did.
Of course the guy I was talking to is a conspiracy shouting boot licking fox-news-parrot who complains endlessly that his guns will be taken away
World leaders love laughing at trump
Donald could blow up a school bus full of kittens and puppies and Vance would still defend him. He's exactly the empty-suit no principles politician the right wing likes to pretend they're against.
Trump: Why should I pick you, Vance? Would you be prepared to say absolutely anything, true or not, to win?
Vance: Of course! Anything!
Trump: Wait, was that a lie?
Vance: Even if it was, wouldn't it just show that I am prepared to lie to win?
Trump: I love this guy. He gets me.
Weird.
JD Vance is a boot licking piss baby
He treats Putin better than the American president.
He trats the president of North Korea better than the president of the United States, his own country. Far better.
Vance's eyes are a couple piss holes in the snow.
With eye liner.
Vance is a little piss baby but there ain't nothing wrong with a man wearing eyeliner.
No, but if you also call cross dressers paedophiles, it's a bit weird.
Unless you're trying to do the manly-man caricature from a conservative point of view.
In which case, JD is outstanding at doing the couch fucker eye look.
You are not only judged by the things you stand for
But also by the things you stand against
You know, we throw the weird term around a lot right now because it's useful and they are weird but this in particular... That is a weird f****** hill to die on.
What's weird about somebody sucking up to their boss?
Lick that boot, JD.
He kinda has to. No political career for him after this if Trump doesn’t win. Best he’ll be able to do is some appearances, but he’ll fade fast. It was a high risk high reward gamble to be Trump’s running mate. Hopefully won’t pay off for him.
And there’s nothing wrong with him complimenting them as people, if it makes him more effective diplomatically.
That's the least eye rolling.
Reading the rest detached my retina.
He got honey-couched.
He's using you, kid. He's got your prick in his back pocket
Wall Street - Ketchup Never Leaks
huh, weird.
Yeah pretty weird thing to say, that. Don’t reckon too many folks would agree with him on that one tbh
That's because he's a couch fucking weirdo.
Oh well if Vance said it then it MUST be true, right?
Fucking dbag.
Nothing wrong with Jorkin DePeanus Vance complimenting lazy boy, west elm, and ikea either.
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4822595-vance-says-nothing-wrong-with-trump-complimenting-leaders-like-xi-putin/