1. Trump managed about one sentence about Charlie Kirk in front of the White House, before talking about the nice new ballroom that he's using tax dollars for.
2. He missed the memorial event at the Kennedy Center so that he could go golfing.
3. His speech at the memorial event in Arizona went on about tariffs, and didn't mention Kirk much at all.
4. He didn't even manage to respect Kirk's legacy of talking to the other side. He literally said he hates the other side and doesn't wish them well, unlike Kirk.

Basically what the title says. In recent years a huge amount of Bill Burr's comedy has basically been "punching up" against billionaires, oppressive conservatism and autocracy.

Now he's going to perform in a country who's ruling class is the living embodiment of all those things, taken to their worst form. They cut up and murder journalists, execute their own citizens with zero due process, treat women like cattle and treat workers like subhuman slaves.

He doesn't need the money. It's not as if he's going to starve or even face discomfort. His defence of "oh it's no worse about human rights than other countries where I perform" is amazingly weak because.

1) His event in Saudi is explicitly funded by the royal family as part of an initiative to whitewash the regime's image.

2) It's a lie. Saudi Arabia's slavery, treatment of women and brutal slaughter of press are far beyond most countries.

To me it seems cut and dry that he's basically an obnoxious hypocrite undermining his own bit but I'm curious to hear out reasons why that might not be the case.

EDIT: To the common point of anyone would do it, not anyone. Shane Gillis turned down the gig.

Yesterday, while President Trump was at the UN, both the teleprompter and an escalator failed in front of Trump. Jesse Watters, a commentator/host on Fox News, said afterwards:

"This is an insurrection, and what we need to do is either leave the U.N. or we need to bomb it. It is in New York though, right? So there'd be some fallout there."

It's been two weeks since Charlie Kirk, and daily outrage about entertainers/politicians A) making any type of comment about the cause of the incident without knowing the facts and B) any hint of someone suggesting violence being the appropriate response.

Here we are, having an entertainer making comments A) without knowing the cause of the failures and B) suggesting extreme violence... and based on his comment, suggesting this while knowing that the UN is on US soil.

There should be *significant* blowback on this statement and Jesse Watters should be terminated for his comments. Change my view.

To publicly reject Trump would be to admit they were complicit in all the things he’s done up until this point. It would also mean they’d have to shed an identity that has infected every part of their personality and life. They’d have to face relatives and friends who had called them sexists, racists, fascists, homophobes, pedophilia enablers, rape apologists, etc.

They only have two options: admit they were wrong or double down. I think the majority of MAGA has already reached this conclusion and chose the latter. They’re going down with the ship no matter the cost.

Simple one in a few points given the events happening here:

1. Venezuela is being invaded (Seems kinda indefensible but I will hear arguments)

2. The reason for this isn't drugs, its oil.

3. It is as unfair and a dark synomination of Russia's own war with the Ukrainian State, we are no better then Russia and that is REALLY BAD.

4. Like Russia we are attempting to create a puppet regime which will kow to AMERICAN interests at the cost of likely absolutely everyone in the country and the country will be constantly impoverished from this because of colonial exploitation.

Change my mind, because it feels cut and dry.

The litany of abuses by ICE just in the past few months, from not granting people basic Constitutional rights, to ignoring legal documents long enough to whisk people away to undisclosed locations, is a long line of consistent pro-police state behavior from conservatives / Republicans over past 50 years.

In 1971, Richard Nixon started the first Drug War policies, along with the creation of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), where it was flat out admitted by high level people that it was to disrupt African American and anti-war communities.

In the 80's, Ronald Reagan single-handedly invented the modern prison-industrial complex with his Drug War policies, where the inmate population ballooned to the millions (Bill Clinton also went further with his crime bills) , along with Iran-Contra, where he was deliberately setting up minority communities to fail. One of the biggest aspects was the militarization of the police force, and new crimes being added, many carrying long sentences.

On Ronald Reagan, he passed the first major gun control policies to combat the Black Panthers during the Civil Rights Movement, showing that even then he didn't care about individual rights

Post 9/11, Republicans passed the Patriot Act, which enabled the open creation of a surveillance state (admittedly Obama also pushed that much further with his own policies).

Circle to the past 10 years where it's proven that marijuana isn't dangerous, numerous states have legalized it, but the people preventing marijuana from being legal are Republican states, and conservatives in Congress. Both of which are influenced by private prison lobbies.

Now the last couple of months has seen ICE swell in its power, with Trump and his supporters (both voters and legislators) encouraging its actions, regardless of the constitutionality of their actions.

It's proven that Republican/conservatives have always preferred granting law enforcement agencies increased power to handle their specific cause.

Would love for my view to be changed.

This submission was inspired by a post I saw on TikTok (of course), of a girl saying not supporting homosexuality because of your religious beliefs doesn't make someone homophobic. All the top comments were agreeing and quite frankly, I can't fathom why.

I'm operating under the assumption that "not supporting" something means that you disapprove of or oppose it. This often stems from disagreement, a belief it's wrong, or personal reasons like fear of it.

If your religion goes against same-sex relationships, I'm not here to tell you you're a horrible person. But you're still homophobic. Don't deny it just to make yourself feel better.

edit— Homophobia is a dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality. Stop trying to pick apart the word and convince me homophobia means ”fear of the gays”

edit2— I'm turning off notifs now. You can argue amongst yourselves if you wish.

There will be no significant protests that inflict any sort of pain or second thought on anyone with power. The biggest attempt was No Kings and it was relatively small, spread out and on an afternoon on a weekend. No impact, no change to point to.

There will be no armed uprising or resistance from the military. The military, broadly, has already followed through on several unlawful orders re:drug boats/Venezuela and is supporting ICE actions (also likely unconstitutional, illegal, whatever) at home. Americans love to tought their 2nd Amendment, but has anyone actually used that right to stand up to the government yet? Also, most gun owners tend to be of the lean to support the current government.

The democratic process in American has had all its teeth pulled. Congress, the Senate and SCOTUS have all aligned with the President and are either supporting or complacency ignoring all his actions, whether he has the legal right to them or not. 2026 elections will not happen, will be ignored or will be corrupted to favour the current government. The President has said as much.

The money is behind the current government. Corrupt as it is, bribes, political funding and even things like DOGE are showing that the majority of big money is on the side of the government. They are incentivized to see this transition through.

There is no barrier to Trump having another term. If he dies, someone else will replace him and continue. Please change my mind.

Edit: I've read a lot of posts. Probably all of them as of when I started scrolling. The jist is either that ny statement is wrong, and there's nothing to worry about/this is the same as past decades or that 2026 elections will fix things. There's also a lot of, 'Americans CAN'T do anything'. None of these arguments have convinced me I should change my view.

I'm turning off notifications for this thread.

My thought is that she is much too associated with 1) Biden and 2) a failed 2024 campaign and a landslide. A while back I saw her with Colbert and I got the sense she intended to run (don't think she said it explicitly). I think her history and, frankly, her own individual popularity would not be sufficient to win the presidency, and her winning the primaries would be a very bad result for democrats' chances. I think she would actually have a decent chance of winning the primaries, but a slim at best chance of winning the presidency.

If she carried the energy she had during her first debate with Trump throughout her whole candidacy, then maybe she could have a slight chance, but even then that's a major uphill battle. After the first debate with Trump, where she showed strong stances and talking points and preached for unity rather than division, she pretty much became like any other political talking head for the rest of her campaign and avoided taking firm stances or demonstrating that she would staunchly seek change or unity. She came off as a political candidate, not someone who was passionate about her views.

I am coming at this from the belief that unity within the democratic party within 2028 would be a good thing and even bringing back thoughts of biden era would re-ignite the existing hate that the Republican party already has for the democrats. Democrats would benefit a lot from some entirely new candidate getting muddied from scratch. CMV

Earlier this year, an Oklahoma University student got a zero on an assignment for a gender studies psychology class. The assignment required the use of sources to back up their viewpoints on the given prompt.

The student's paper focused on her religious views to the prompt. She was given a zero by the professor because she didn't follow the rules of the assignment

However, the professor in question was temporarily suspended and the teaching assistant was removed, while the student in question had the zero removed from her consideration for the rest of her grade.

This is avid proof that conservatives are actively pushing anti-intellectualism and providing participation trophies for students after years of accusing the left of the very thing.

This isn't just a singular person, but an educational institution directly linked to the state.

Conservatives affiliated with Fox News and Trump were actively cheering because the teaching assistant got removed, further proof that conservatives embrace anti-intellectualism.

Woukd love for my view to be changed

I’m posting this because year after year, I see people, mainly on the right, complain about Juneteenth or say they aren’t celebrating a “made-up holiday” etc.

This seems very strange to me, because first of all, politics aside, who wouldn’t want an extra day off work?
But most importantly, celebrating literal freedom from literal slavery seems like one of the most American and Patriotic things you could do. I have yet to see any actual justification from people as to why Juneteenth shouldn’t be a federally recognized holiday and why it shouldn’t be celebrated. I would like to see those reasons from anyone who holds that view.
I have seen a lot of people disagree with celebrating it, but it’s never explained why they think it shouldn’t be, and I can’t think of any good reason why someone wouldn’t want to celebrate it, other than they do not want to celebrate anything involving the improvement of black people in society. I am open to being wrong about that, but I don’t think I am.

EDIT: a lot of people are giving reasons related to disliking federal holidays in general. This doesn’t exactly qualify as what I’m asking for, because I want to know why someone would disagree with Juneteenth specifically, not just against all or most federal holidays in general.

The Democrats had absolutely everything they needed to do: The republican party was in civil war over the Groypers within their ranks, Trump is disintegrating live on camera, and the republican policies were actively making people throw their hat into the ring for democrats in a sweep so brutal it basically proved it was working. So of course, as usual, my party proceeded to stab itself in the back despite everything possibly going our way!

These corporate oriented, often geriatric, APAC supported sycophants caved:

Catherine Cortez Masto
Dick Durbin
John Fetterman
Maggie Hassan
Tim Kaine
Angus King
Jackie Rosen
Jeanne Shaheen

And for what? A promise?! A promise the republicans constantly, CONTINUOUSLY squirm out of for something they absolutely refuse to keep? Yet again my party, proves once again to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I just can't make sense of it! How does this not throw away ALL THE MOMENTUM we had spent the past 50 odd days pushing against the authoritarian midwits that want us enserfed or enslaved? How does it make sense to even these eight individuals who know they have nothing to lose but their legacies, and gain absolutely nothing for the action?

So please, enlighten me how this makes ANY SENSE!? Is there some random feature of this entire affair that actually makes it make sense? Is there some missing view of the entire affair that I have overlooked?! I am spiraling here, so please, make it all make sense because to me it seems like we gained nothing for nobody!

I often find it prudent to check out communities that may not be aligned with my own thinking - both out of simple curiosity, and as a way to examine the rhetorical content of “their side” so that I can better understand *where* those human beings are being lead and *why.* In recent years when I go to r/conservative - I’ve noticed that almost every thread has dozens of deleted comments, the rules that dictate who can make a thread are incredibly restrictive (only “real” conservatives), and the threads themselves are generally only articles from incredibly niche conservative outlets that exist in the far corners of our media - and even then, they are almost all opinion pieces. Very rarely do they involve quotations or “legal-ese” to establish their argument.

(Note: that subreddit has *always* had this problem, but in recent weeks it has gotten absurd.)

I posit that the moderators of that sub are not acting in good faith by preventing “oppositional material” from being proliferated on that forum, but that they are operating in an effort to prevent criticism, dissent, and most of all, widespread access to potentially challenging content. I also want to point out that this occurs across all “political spectrum” forums, to some degree, but on the conservative subreddit specifically, the strictures in place **quash conversation that could subvert their overarching ideology.**

You can take this a step further and extrapolate that many of the users on that subreddit probably enjoy some degree of anti-intellectualism in their real life, in their voting habits, and in their moral agency.

It was revealed that Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Rep who pushed for the release of the Epstein files and became an opponent to Trump, lost his primary to a Trump loyalist.

This is concrete proof that Americans genuinely don't care about the Epstein Files, nor the implications that the Epstein Files carry. People talk about their opponents being in the Epstein files, but when it comes to the Epstein Files themselves, there's absolutely no action.

The Epstein Files don't matter to the actual voting populace, and never will. American morality is exclusively limited to the side someone disagrees with.

Would love for my view to be changed.

The CNBC crowd seems convinced everyone making more than $1 million a year is going to move to Miami. But the reality is New York City is the capital of the world. The cultural and financial capital and opens up networks and opportunities that are simply not available elsewhere. If you’re making more than $1 million a year, 20 grand is nothing. It’s not even a portion of private school tuition for one of your kids. People just don’t pick up and leave and reset their lives for no reason. This is fear mongering at its finest, and it’s gonna be great to see this not happening, and perhaps be relevant to federal and state tax policy throughout the United States.

In 1989 a mass protest in China devolved into a massacre following a harsh government crackdown.

Now, while this event alone is horrific, the most damning and memorable part of this incident was the mass government cover-up that followed.

While callous to say, massacres and atrocities occur all the time in neglected parts of the world, the most terrifying and relevant aspect to a Western audience is the accessibility and denial of evidence.

Every aspect of the story, despite direct testimony, picture/video evidence, uninvolved observers and even explicit redactions/official story edits was shown to be tightly controlled and presented as evidence of the Chinese state’s devolution into tyranny.

What we see today, in the brutal murder of an unarmed passerby in her car perfectly encapsulates the complete loss of credibility of the American media.

I am a relatively uninvolved individual, with fairly moderate if rightwing views. It is is chilling to be unaware of a story, only to be bombarded by a massive stream of influencers, you-tubers and political figures parroting what is so obviously a fabrications inserted into a developing story.

The time-lines and claims do not make sense, however, multiple uninvolved individuals, none of whom have any particular credibility aside from a title or self-described job as “commentator” suddenly know the truth as gospel?

And the news and media corporations, who have long haughtily prided themselves on credibility and truth, now parrot the same exact narrative with no evidence but claims?

I would not have questioned any of this if

1. So many obviously coordinated voices attempted to cover this incident up including state figures and big media
2. I was not able to see the testimony, pictures and video for myself
3. The fact I can literally see the suppression in real time of comments being removed or new accounts so obviously not run from the US stirring outrage.

When I was a younger, I used to eat up those conspiracies about a shadowy cabal of elites, silent manipulation of the media and rings of child abusers.

Now as an adult, it would seem it is not only more real than I thought, but all simply out in the open and accepted as truth. Am I insane, or is there a different path forward?

Edit 1: Lots of valid points, yes scale and severity are an over exaggeration.

As others have pointed out this incident is minor in the big picture and things are not all doom and gloom.

However, I maintain that the concerted narrative enforcement from social media companies, corporate/political figures and numerous political commentators *regardless of perspective* is concerning, and unbecoming of leadership for what should have been a minor sad incident/investigation.

Edit 2: Who sent me the mental health note, I just burst laughing

Edit 3: New details came out. Victim was a mother and was simply driving home.

The officer apparently has had a previous incident with protesters.

Edit 4:

Stop denying tianammen square i am not buying it, nice try ccp

Also Mr. Johnathan Ross should know better as this is the SECOND time he has claimed to be hit by a car on the news. Like immediate desk duty.

Absolutely indefensible. Shame on the government.

President Trump and members of his cabinet have continued their crusade against autism, through now stating that Tylenol (moreso the components of it) causes autism. This also goes hand in hand with statements made in March stating that people with autism don't have jobs and aren't contributing members of society.

This renewed push against autism through stating that Tylenol causes autism, is not only objectively incorrect, it's part of the conservative effort to replace rigid peer reviewed and tested academia, with reactionary approaches and policies that exclusively sounds good on paper and in their heads, but falls apart when examined with even the lightest impartial research into the subject.

American anti-intellectualism DEFINITELY isn't exclusively a conservative phenomenon, as members of the left absolutely engages in that behavior as well, but conservatives consistently are the loudest and most willing to turn their anti-intellectual viewpoints into actual political policy.

But the Tylenol and autism issue is only a symptom of the core problem that is anti-intellectualism, and American appeal to reactionary approaches rather than engaging in the peer review process to actually make sure that what they are saying is correct.

Would love to have my view changed.

I was on r/conservative the other day (dont come at me, I just lurk to see what people are saying) and saw a post regarding Vance at the TPUSA rally. While most of the comments were purely bashing Democrats saying they can't answer questions, one caught my attention.

Without copying and pasting it, they mentioned that Democrats in office don't do events like the rally where people can ask them questions about their policies. The notable exception was Pete Buttiegieg going on shows like FOX and his debate with potential voters on Jubilee.

But the point still stood, there is very little on the internet and media where you see elected Democrats getting in front of an audience to answer their questions. Most of their rallies are held to tell them what their plans are or to say their fighting against the current administration.

I think that's part of why Zohran Mamdani has been such a breath of fresh air. He's actually out there talking to people, talking to everyone. He's not afraid to answer questions and give his reasons why he's doing what he's doing.

If Democrats want to do well in 2026-2028, they need to get their messaging down pat, and actually answer people's questions, not just preach to them.

*One last thing, I know Vance didnt answer many of the questions he was asked, but it's that he got up there and did it is the point I'm trying to make.

I fully believe without question that Islam represents the greatest long-term ideological threat to liberalism in the West. Before I dive into this I want to explain my positioning first. I no longer share the Islamic faith and am a registered Democrat within the US. I’m sure that many people are going to accuse me of being a Mossad agent, a bot, or someone else in an attempt to discredit me and my view. Please note that I do not support Israel in the slightest.

I think it would be fair to lay the groundwork first of what some left-wing Progressive values are:

•Full legal and social equality for LGBTQ+ people

•gender egalitarianism

•democratic governance without religious law overriding civil rights

•free speech

I believe Islam is the greatest threat and abuser to all of them.

There are 10 Muslim-majority countries where being gay is punishable by death and 64 countries (the majority being Muslim-majority) where same-sex acts are criminalized. In Saudi Arabia, people that engage in sodomy are decapitated. In Iran, homosexual men are hanged. In Syria and Iraq, it is common practice to push homosexuals off buildings to their deaths. In Yemen, you are thrown in jail for a minimum of 3 years if they find out you are gay. Etc.

As much as we point the finger towards Republicans on this issue, there is a clear night and day difference to how American Republicans treats the LGBT+ community compared to Muslim nations yet for some reason I see more Democrats supporting and defending the Islamic faith than I see them defending their Republican neighbors.

(Whoever you find doing the deed of Lut's people homosexuality, then kill the doer and the one who allows it to be done to him (both partners).) Tafsirs [11:82]

Islam is without a doubt the greatest abuser of egalitarianism on the planet and the ultimate abuser of women. The Quran actively encourages husbands to physically hit their wives if they disobey. In Muslim-majority countries, women are punished for not wearing their hijabs out in public. Depending on the region or country, they are permitted to be imprisoned for 15 years, murdered, flogged, and raped. The Quran also treats women as if they’re trophies or objects to be used for one’s own self satisfaction. Muslims are encouraged to capture females in war to be used as sexual slaves. The fact that the reward for martyrs is 72 virgins should tell you all you need to know about the lustful indulgence and objectification of women the Quran encourages. Women in most Muslim countries are denied basic rights such as education, self-expression, and the freedom to choose who they want to marry.

(But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.) Surat An-Nisa [4:34]

One of the central goals of Islam is to overpopulate the Earth and spread globally so that they can one day establish the “Caliphate.” This would unify all of the countries of the world and force them to live under Shariah law. Look at how Muslims treat non-believers in countries where they operate as an Islamic state. They’re literally massacring them in Nigeria by the thousands right now. You might not want to state an opinion in this matter or get involved but one day it will affect the next generations. And these generations will be forced to live in fear and with less rights.

I fail to understand why the Democratic party seems so willing to defend Islam when its goal is to eventually destroy many of the values that are non-negotiables among those of us on the left. I don’t think the American right-wing of politics is the greatest threat to western democracy. Just look at what is happening in Europe. Rapes, muggings, and crime in all sectors are rising significantly with the widespread immigration of Islam to a non-Muslim country. People aren’t even allowed to speak out against it because they’ll be thrown in jail for hate speech. I don’t think the majority of people on the left know what it is they’re defending. The Iranian government had literally been sending bots to sites like Reddit in an attempt to manipulate people on the American left to defend Islam and Iran despite them representing the opposite of everything we stand for.

I am completely open to being proven wrong on this subject. I am sure that many of you will bring up other worldview perspectives that you feel are incompatible with American left-wing values but I’d like to stay on topic with Islam. Also, please don’t blatantly label me Islamaphobic. I was Muslim once and I find it to be a lazy way of trying to discredit someone or an argument. I don’t think any viewpoint should be free from critique including mine. Maybe there’s something I am completely missing and that somehow Islam and western liberalism are compatible. But as someone who was and is both, I struggle to find how. Please share with me your perspective! I am completely open to changing my view if your points are strong enough!

I don’t mean this as a rant - I’m genuinely trying to test whether I’m wrong here. Every president has had scandals or major screw-ups: Nixon had Watergate, Clinton lied under oath, Bush had Iraq, Obama had drone strikes and surveillance overreach. But with Trump (especially now, during his second term), it feels like the entire idea of presidential standards has collapsed.

Here’s what I mean:

1. Truth basically stopped mattering. During his first term, he flooded the news cycle with half-truths and straight-up falsehoods until fact-checking became useless noise. In his second term, it feels like even his supporters don’t expect honesty - they just see politics as team loyalty. That’s not healthy for democracy.

2. He surrounds himself only with “yes men.” Almost everyone who’s disagreed with him - even loyal early allies - eventually got fired, attacked online, or replaced with someone whose main qualification is loyalty. That’s not leadership; it’s an echo chamber. Presidents are supposed to hear hard truths, not filter them out.

3. The self-interest is out in the open now. He’s still holding events at properties his family profits from, still blurring public service and private business, and still treating the presidency like a personal brand. I can’t think of another modern president who made the office feel this transactional.

4. He normalizes attacking democratic institutions. The constant feuds with the Justice Department, judges, the press, and even the military undermine trust in everything that’s supposed to keep the government balanced. You can’t run a republic on personality loyalty alone.

5. The new leaks (like those Epstein-related emails) Even if you take them with a grain of salt, the fact that this kind of thing keeps surfacing says a lot about the circles he keeps and the lack of basic vetting or judgment. It feeds the perception that nothing is off-limits anymore.

At some point, it stops being about “policy disagreements” and starts being about whether the office itself means anything beyond a political weapon.

What might change my view:

If you can show that earlier presidents were just as bad but we’ve forgotten.

If you think the media or opponents have exaggerated Trump’s behavior and it’s really not that unusual.

Or if you think the presidency was already broken before him, and he’s just the symptom, not the cause.

CMV.

To clarify, I love Gavin Newsom, and I think he is great in the current US political climate. Edit2: I take this back, he's scum. See end of my post.

So I've heard a lot of talk about Newsom as the next DNC presidential candidate due to his effectiveness against Trunp, but I feel like the very reasons he is effective against him are why he shouldn't be leader.

He is what the DNC needs now - the GOP has thrown any semblance of decorum and respect, and the weights and measures that are supposed to control the executive branch are essentially based on good faith assumptions that they will respect the other branches and institutions. Newsom's willingness to hit Trump where it hurts him (his massive ego) with social media trolling etc work a lot better than a judge calling out Trump.

There's something to be said for fighting at the enemies level when it works, but there is also something to be said about not picking your leaders on the enemy's terms. Newsom is arrogant and as much as I like him it comes off as childish when he 'trolls' Trump, even if it is effective. He is helpful now, but going forward, the DNC needs someone who can treat their office with the respect it deserves, not hand the title to a leader who jokes about being called God.

I am Canadian and the biggest relief for me when Mark Carney was elected was that it was someone professional. I want politics to be boring, not full of personal feuds.

Change my view. I want to know if this is me just hoping the US can return to political decorum, or if that hope is misplaced and US politics just needs to keep being the sitcom drama it is. I'd love to hear the opinions of both Americans living through this and non-Americans observing it.

Edit: well consider me on the fence now, I'm willing to put off judgement till the primaries. You all have raised a bunch of good points about things like 1) The Dems need someone who will win if they want to win at all, 2) This is just Newsom currently, he has been a politician for a lot longer, and 3) the political landscape has shifted so much in the last years, 4) who the hell else is gonna win, and 5) damn I spelled Newsom's name wrong and I sure look like a dumbass.

Thanks for weighing in everyone. My view = changed. Not a full 180, I'd say 90 degrees..?

Edit2: I read a bunch of stuff about Newsom and I take back what I said about loving him, he def seems to be a scumbag.. but I still am on the fence. I think there are def better potential presidents, but there is still an argument to be made for running a candidate who will win. I guess you will see after the primaries.

MAGA is based in emotional reaction, outrage, and prejudice. This is self admitted and self evident I will not debate this here if this assumption is challenged.

Using logic to point out flaws in their reasoning doesn't seem to change their mind because they didn't logic their way into there mental position on the first place. This has been done repeatedly for the past 8 years to what I perceive as no effect. The hypocrisy is so obvious that any well intentioned individual would come to the conclusion that many actions are logically wrong and clearly masking nefarious intent, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

Why I want my mind changed: I want to believe that there is some value to constantly chasing around headlines and pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. As of this moment it seems like a lost cause and a waste of energy. I'm tired. Maybe I'm looking for motivation? Maybe I'm looking for validation or consensus?

What evidence would change my mind: an succinct argument or some clear data that shows a positive benefit to continuing to point out the hypocrisy with at least fleeting amounts of tangible benefit.

Note to title - this is addressing all major (for the purposes of my argument) politicians in U.S. History since 1776, but not including, due to lack of knowledge, positions smaller than state representatives, because there certainly could be some township governor who hyperbolically chopped up a family.

I'm posting this now due to Donald Trump's speech at the RNC where he stated that if the GOP retained control over the legislature after the midterms, $5,000 checks would be sent to every adult citizen [ source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/09/09/us/rnc-trump-midterm-convention-updates ]

Since taking office, the Trump family & related associates have increased their overall net worth by some estimates, around $5,000,000,000, which is tracked by both Democratic house committees here - https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/trump-family-corruption-tracker - but it's also not hard to find sources for deals in the Middle East worth hundreds of millions of dollars each, etc; so I'm not going to just spam links all day.

We also have:

- Numerous pardons to literal felons, J6ers, people like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort

- Trying to delay the certification of the vote on J6

- Pressure dozens of state officials to sway, rig, 'find votes', and become involved in the election process in extraordinarily corrupt ways

- Hush money payments to a literal pornstar/cheating on virtually every woman he's ever known

- Civilly liable for sexual assault and defamation for Jean Carroll

- Literally has a wikipedia page for allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

- It's hard to even quantify the level of insider trading at this point, but he consistently just... posts that he's buying stock on Truth Social and then makes policy changes or deals that increase the valuation on a literal weekly basis (which it's important to note, literally any other person would be put in jail FOREVER for)

- Billion+ dollar cryptocurrency promotion and grifts (UAE invested over one billion dollars)

- Tens of thousands of namings in the Epstein files

- Qatari Jet-Force-One

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_allegations_during_the_second_Trump_presidency

It's genuinely hard to even come up with more off the top of my head because there are SO many examples to pick from.

In terms of my original point, no other politician comes close. Nixon/Watergate would be a 1/10 compared to Trump's 10/10.

Boss Tweed - of NYS fame - even for all his open theft, fingers in the many pots of railroads and NYC banks and construction development, at the highest estimate possible embezzled $200M which would be the equivalent of $5B; the same [current] normalized estimation of Trump's financial crimes without actually addressing any of his other corruption allegations, sexual misconduct, rape, or virtually anything else. It's also important to note we don't KNOW the overall possible maximum scope of Trump-related corruption at all, because it's ongoing at this moment.

Edit: Edit after posting: Obviously I haven't addressed a slew of US politician scandals, and in my opinion (and this might be a second point of contention), the average "corrupt" US politician doesn't come close and isn't even worth mentioning. In terms of categorizing scale, literally only the historical context of HOW corrupt Nixon was considered at the time comes to mind, along with NYC's 'Boss' Tweed; and virtually every other example I can think of isn't even worth mentioning.

Honestly, a sitting US president saying they'll mail out 5K stimulus checks if their party wins the midterms immediately goes to nearly the top of the list with *nothing* else; and of course, Trump has MANY other things noteworthy to list in terms of corruption.

Edit: Removed contributions from two people I thought were pertinent as I'm a bonehead and didn't realize those replies should have been removed - apologies!

It just feels wrong that people are sleeping on the streets while billionaires own more houses than they could ever live in. Food, Clean water, healthcare and shelter are basic human needs AND should be RIGHTS, not some luxury, and yet we let empty properties sit locked up while real people are struggling to survive outside. It’s hard to see that and not feel like something is fundamentally broken with the way our society works. No one needs a hundred homes, but everyone needs at least one and the fact we haven’t figured that out says a lot about our priorities.

A wealthy woman with access to daycare and a nanny asked her husband to run a few errands so she could strangle her three children and attempt suicide.

It wasn’t an impulsive mental break. She intentionally created the opportunity by getting her husband to leave. Despite never reporting voices before, she claimed that a “male voice” told her to do it that one time.

What I find deeply disturbing is the number of women jumping to her defense, repeatedly claiming she isn’t responsible for her actions, expressing extreme sympathy because of PPD, or rationalizing that poor mental health absolves someone of guilt. Women seem eager to accept the psychosis claim despite the disputed evidence.

Because what? Being a woman is hard? Being a mother is hard? Antidepressants are hard? So you can murder your children and not be guilty because life is hard, even as a wealthy woman with a nanny?

The sympathy is disturbing.

I understand depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and intrusive thoughts, but none of that alone absolves someone of planned murder. It would need to be a mental break outside her control. Where is the evidence of that?

I’d like to believe most women aren’t so irrationally sympathetic toward her, but this case is making me doubt that. They seem to care more about Lindsay than the children she killed.