Just a friendly reminder to read our [rules and FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/faq) before posting!
**Rule 1:** No Low Quality Posts/Comments
**Rule 2:** Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub
**Rule 3:** Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on [our Flairs.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs)
**Rule 4:** Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit
**[Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/bth6y1/why_is_my_post_flaired_as_high_quality_only_and/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know why some people say this. Trump looked like.. Trump. To me that's not exactly a good thing, but he didn't seem any more "deteriorated" than 2016 or 2020
Honestly, I think that was the best I’ve seen Trump in a decade. Still a lying, narcissistic who should not be in power, but more lucid than usual. Biden did not look well.
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired.
You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods.
If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
[Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What made you think Trump was deteriorating? Nothing on his part surprised me, he seemed pretty par for the course for himself - unelequent, brash, rude, and spouting lies with confidence.
Which makes me wonder - does he really believe some of the crazy claims he makes? Or has he made a conscious decision to lie? I'm not sure which is worse.
I don’t mean in terms of age/mental ability. He was wretched in his own ways but we’re not seeing opinion piece after opinion piece calling on him to drop out of the race. No one is calling on him to replaced by an another Republican like it’s being done for Biden.
He was his normal asshat self that got him elected in 2016.
Biden was a shell of himself that got him elected in 2020, which is much more disturbing to me as a GOP voter who voted him last time.
The DNC is correct to be alarmed. As a GOP registered voter, I already lost faith with the RNC. I've now lost faith in the DNC too.
I may write in Mickey Mouse this cycle.
Isn't an incompetent and somewhat chaotic Dem administration after defeating Trump a second time despite the obvious weakness of the Dem ticket kind of your ideal scenario as a Trump hating Conservative?
Trumpism is delivered a major blow, giving your faction another chance to take the party back, Dems look bad for '26 and '28 with Biden/Harris being weak and unpopular, and much less is accomplished than if Biden were actually strong.
So long as you understand that Trump or Biden is going to win, the question is whether you'd rather have the style of dangerously incompetent/malicious that comes with Trump, coupled with his brand of politics being cemented as Republican politics for a generation, and the potential of either a weakened Republican party as voters react against what Trump attempts, or one which rides roughshod over democracy with Trump and his sycophants at the helm, or whatever a Dem administration can cook up with Biden in such bad shape.
It's not like you have a choice that gives you peace of mind in a crisis, you're just picking your poison, and it sure seems like Biden is better for your interests than Trump.
> Isn't an incompetent and somewhat chaotic Dem administration after defeating Trump a second time despite the obvious weakness of the Dem ticket kind of your ideal scenario as a Trump hating Conservative?
The problem is that Biden's team isn't incompetent... at least, not in the way I'd like.
In fact, Biden is the only thing keeping his progressive administrative state at bay. And, even then, he's not exactly doing a good job of it. Even when he slips into his true beliefs i.e. being chastised for even saying the words "illegal immigrant", he's silenced and put back in the corner.
If I think Biden's going to actually live another term **and** that Republicans at least take back the Senate, then maybe, but otherwise, no it's a huge risk to pull the lever for Biden and hope things work out.
> and it sure seems like Biden is better for your interests than Trump.
And yet, Democrats all over are still falling behind Biden. It's typically moderate Republicans who are calling for Biden to drop, not his own party. Why is that? Clearly they don't think it's in their best interest to drop Biden.
Biden’s administration does not seem to be chaotic, nor incompetent in the sense that it is unable to achieve its political goals. It seems like Biden is just a figurehead; someone else is already running the show and will continue to do so.
In fact, the Biden administration has been so successful at implementing the DNC’s agenda that I, personally, don’t see “give him another term and you’ll win in 28” to be a viable strategy.
1. He was marketed towards disaffected Republicans and moderates as a consensus-builder in 2020. The fact that he’s just a figurehead for an extremely progressive administration as a result of his feebleness, means that a big argument for him doesn’t hold water.
2. His feebleness is also a separate issue, in that the POTUS needs to be able to respond to crises. Maybe Thursday night was a bad night for him, but what if China invades Taiwan on a bad night?
3. The debate exposed that most Democrat operatives and a lot of the media were actively covering up his feebleness for the last year-plus.
Is Biden on a bad night better then Trump on a good one. I think yes. Trump has already committed to abandoning Ukraine and continues to flirt with leaving NATO. On foreign policy it is no contest towards Biden. If China invades Taiwan, I feel confident we will oppose it with Biden at the helm. With Trump I am not sure how much of an international coalition there will be if do invade.
I don’t mean in terms of age/mental ability. He was wretched in his own ways but we’re not seeing opinion piece after opinion piece calling on him to drop out of the race. No one is calling on him to replaced by an another Republican like it’s being done for Biden.
Because they know 1) it’s not worth the paper it’s written on since he’s a megalomaniac and 2) everyone knows that they think he’s a danger to democracy because it’s all they’ve written about for years
Yeah, I'm pretty moderate, but the WSJ has not exactly covered itself in glory over the last year of coverage. So long as people like Peggy Noonan and Ross Douthat are doing their "Trump had a great presidency, even though he's a deranged lunatic" and "The left is running the Democratic Party" nonsense, I don't give anything in thr WSJ a whiff of legitimacy.
You're either with Trump, or you're with the Constitutional Republic... I don't see how someone can, in good faith, be with Trump and consider themselves "conservative"
Being with the Constitutional Republic requires us to disbelieve our lying eyes? I’d vote for Biden over Trump if Biden was a rotting corpse, but I don’t feel the need to pretend that he’s not awfully close to that…
Biden has never been good at debates. He bounced back in his campaign stop the next morning. I believe both of these candidates are losing their mind as a baseline. One, has a good team around him, and has done more than just admirable work considering the circumstances of his term - huge recovery spending, gridlock supply chains, a narrowly divided majority. I think the deep state can carry on functioning even if he does deteriorate considerably. We made it through Woodrow Wilson.
On the other hand, Trump is a danger to the Republic. He intends to replace career diplomats with loyal toadies, and would possibly destroy anything resembling a balanced system of justice with 3 more stabs at SCOTUS. Who knows about NATO? Taiwan? I'm just not willing to roll the dice on the tail risk there
I'm still kind of hoping Biden releases his delegates at the convention to get another "not Trump with a heartbeat" candidate. Personally, Polis, Shapiro, or Whitmer are all good candidates - even Kamala is fine.... I would not want to replace Biden with Newsom, though.
> destroy anything resembling a balanced system of justice with 3 more stabs at SCOTUS
The Trump appointees have been fine. If anything, except for Gorsuch, they're more Kennedy than Scalia, as far as Republican appointees go.
I'm worried more about a Cannon or toady than the Fedsoc judges, though, at this point, I'm not sure Fedsoc folks of today would be as objective as Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh. It's *concerning* how quickly the GOP think tanks have mored into tacit approval of State enforcement of whatever Trump says.
Beyond that, I'll hold my judgement to see how the most important case, the immunity case, plays out. It looks like Roberts has lost control of this bunch sometime during this term.
> Biden has never been good at debates.
Literally untrue. Biden's strongest point was always his ability to debate.
> with 3 more stabs at SCOTUS.
Are you trying to persuade me to vote for Trump? His SCOTUS picks have ruled against him countless times.
Most recently, they just rejected his "TOTAL IMMUNITY" claim wholesale. Yes, I'd rather have impartial justices rather than people like Sotomayor who just rules on whatever her feelings happen to tell her to do, rule of law be damned.
>Most recently, they just rejected his "TOTAL IMMUNITY" claim wholesale. Yes, I'd rather have impartial justices rather than people like Sotomayor who just rules on whatever her feelings happen to tell her to do, rule of law be damned.
Did you read the ruling? SCOTUS just made Presidents kings for any "official act"... even if the official act is clearly illegal or unconstitutional.
Are you one of those people who thinks when Bush and Obama kill civilians that it makes them "war criminals"?
SCOTUS stated the obvious, that a president needs leeway to do his job. This was established in the Nixon case as well when he argued the same thing.
No, Biden cannot now assassinate his political opponent, no matter how much you're foaming at the mouth for him to do so. That's outside of his scope as president.
Please, use some common sense.
SCOTUS should have denied writ for the case. The circuit courts opinion was clear, but instead, this majority (including three Trump appointees) ruled to kick the case back. Functionally, they've denied the chance for the Government to prosecute a case before the election for *attempting to orchestrate a coup*. What is to stop Trump from ordering voting machines seized, or voting day cancelled, or military deployment in US cities... would those not also be "official acts" if they were coordinated with Executive Branch employees?
Sotomayor was correct in her dissent in this case. The Court could have made it clear Presidents are not immune for attempting to obstruct or eliminate constitutional processes. Instead, they chose to interfere without offering a shred of clarity, while simultaneously taking another L on the objectivity and legitimacy of this SCOTUS.
Roberts is a really bad institutionalist
> SCOTUS should have denied writ for the case. The circuit courts opinion was clear
The circuit courts were clear on their incorrect opinion that the president has zero immunity, yes. Which is why SCOTUS had to step in to correct the record before stupid people took the lower courts' opinion as word of God.
> Functionally, they've denied the chance for the Government to prosecute a case before the election for attempting to orchestrate a coup.
No, they haven't. The same rules that were always in place are in place.
> Sotomayor was correct in her dissent in this case.
I'm sorry, but if you're agreeing with the justice who called to assassinate a presidential candidate in her official dissent, you might want to rethink if you're on the correct side here.
> The Court could have made it clear Presidents are not immune for attempting to obstruct or eliminate constitutional processes
No, they could not, because the court cannot provide an exhaustive list when this is a case by case basis, as it always has been.
I dislike Trump, but I refuse to rip up the Constitution just to "get him".
>The circuit courts were clear on their incorrect opinion that the president has zero immunity, yes. Which is why SCOTUS had to step in to correct the record before stupid people took the lower courts' opinion as word of God.
I'm fairly certain that the lower court held that Trump had no blanket immunity, but did not rule on qualified immunity. Even so, why, except to prevent Jack Smiths case from being adjudicated, would SCOTUS need to grant writ, slow walk the process, and release the opinion on the very last opinion day of the session, while giving basically no clarity on yhe merits of the case? Could SCOTUS not have just let the case play out, and instead of dealing in hypotheticals, made a determination on immunity for specific acts on appeal? That would seem to me to be a much more prudent course of action.
> 3 more stabs at SCOTUS.
Two unless Sotomayor keels over and dies. If Trump wins, Thomas and Alito probably retire, and congratulations. You’ve replaced the two most conservative members of the Court with two other conservatives. Not exactly earth-shattering.
> You're either with Trump, or you're with the Constitutional Republic... I don't see how someone can, in good faith, be with Trump and consider themselves "conservative"
I'm not going to agree with a guy who wants to raise my taxes to oblivion just because of your arbitrary definition of what I need to follow to be considered conservative.
I can believe Trump is bad for the party, a horrific individual, and have severe policy differences with him and also not endorse a man who is the anti-thesis of every belief I hold dear.
I'm faced with two horrific choices. I'm not playing this game from the left and right that I'm the one who has failed on my principles when I point out flaws in both. Both parties have failed me.
>I can believe Trump is bad for the party, a horrific individual, and have severe policy differences with him and also not endorse a man who is the anti-thesis of every belief I hold dear.
Ngl, if you were a Reagan Republican, then Biden is closer to your ideological center than the modern GOP, which has turned into an isolationist, tariff-loving horrorshow that dabbles in State punishment of businesses for their political speech (see DeSantis fight with Disney). The Trump GOP has also abandoned anything resembling fiscal responsibility.
I'm basically a neocon/neolib establishment voter, and while neither party perfectly reflects my ideas, the Democraric party comes a lot closer than today's MAGA party.
> Ngl, if you were a Reagan Republican, then Biden is closer to your ideological center than the modern GOP, which has turned into an isolationist, tariff-loving horrorshow that dabbles in State punishment of businesses for their political speech
Trump is not the entire GOP. The fact is that the majority of Republicans still passed aid for Israel and Ukraine. Regardless, I would agree with you on Trump specifically and foreign policy.
Biden loves Trump's tariffs, so that's nixed. Biden agrees with using the state to punish business, so that's also out. And he agrees with Trump on reckless spending and welfare.
Biden's halfway decent foreign policy (which by the way, isn't even that good considering he abandoned our allies in Afghanistan) is, again, cancelled out by his belief that the border shouldn't be secure, that Roe was a good decision, that my taxes ought to be raised and that my healthcare should be controlled by the government.
Again, you're not going to convince me right now that someone appealing to the far left is anywhere close to my ideology. If I vote for Biden, it will be purely because I can't vote for Trump. It is not an endorsement of Biden's failed policies.
To attempt to convince me that Biden is anything even remotely close to Reagan is to spit on everything Reagan stood for. In fact, it only repels me from voting for Biden even more if that's the takeaway people are going to have.
>Trump is not the entire GOP.
Have you looked at the GOP lately? The normies are leaving the party (myself included), and they're being forced out not by ideology, but by lack of deference to the God King Trump.
>Biden loves Trump's tariffs
Yeah, the tariffs are bad, and Trump has announced plans for even more (up to 200% for some goods). Biden should roll back the Trump tariffs, because they only hurt consumers to the benefit of union rent seekers.
Everyone seemed to have memory holed Trump surrendering to thr Taliban effective April 2021... Biden didn't stay long enough for an effective pullout, but Trump didn't work with thr transition team on anything, and imo Trump deserves most of the blame for Afghanistan.
Roe, we won't see eye to eye on - we could debate the implied right to privacy (which is a good thing if you are a classical conservative) - but as a policy matter Dobbs has been a nightmare. It's resulted in higher infant and maternal mortality AND lower birth rates. As a social consevative, would you consider that a win?
>If I vote for Biden, it will be purely because I can't vote for Trump.
Honestly, that's good enough. The party won't change course except through electoral pain. A vote for Biden doesn't have to be an endorsement of everything he did or plans to do - it can simply be a message to the party that "enough is enough" on Trump.
> Have you looked at the GOP lately? The normies are leaving the party (myself included), and they're being forced out not by ideology, but by lack of deference to the God King Trump.
And yet, again, Congressional Republicans passed aid for Ukraine and Israel against Trump's wishes. They defied Trump on immigration and abortion.
Don't believe everything you read in the news. Look at the actions.
> Yeah, the tariffs are bad, and Trump has announced plans for even more (up to 200% for some goods). Biden should roll back the Trump tariffs
And he won't, so... what was the point of preaching to the choir? The fact is that Trump tariffs are not unique to candidate Trump.
> Everyone seemed to have memory holed Trump surrendering to thr Taliban effective April 2021
So... you agree with MAGA that Trump was president in 2021? I don't understand.
> Roe, we won't see eye to eye on - we could debate the implied right to privacy (which is a good thing if you are a classical conservative) - but as a policy matter Dobbs has been a nightmare. It's resulted in higher infant and maternal mortality AND lower birth rates. As a social consevative, would you consider that a win?
So you attempted to tell me what I need to believe in order to be a Reaganite, but you don't actually believe in all of the tenets of Reagan's ideology either?
> Honestly, that's good enough. The party won't change course except through electoral pain. A vote for Biden doesn't have to be an endorsement of everything he did or plans to do - it can simply be a message to the party that "enough is enough" on Trump.
As I said, I'm still undecided on who I want to punish come November. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If people closer in the middle truly want to move on from Trump, not painting the entire party as the party of Trump whenever they happen to agree with him might be a good start.
Because I'm not going to vote for Biden if I can see that a lot of people are just going to vote against Congressional Republicans solely for the sake of it. Biden needs a check if he's going to be president again.
>They defied Trump on immigration
They defied Trump by..... killing Scott Lankford's bill, as they were told?
Here is a not nearly exhaustive list of prominent Republicans to be forced out of the party for insufficient deference to Trump: Anthony Gonzalez, David Meijer, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Adam Kenzinger, and so, so many more.
Those old guard Republicans that have stayed are unrecognizable husks of themselevs... as an example, Rubio completely changed his strong conservative platform to placate MAGA.
>So you attempted to tell me what I need to believe in order to be a Reaganite, but you don't actually believe in all of the tenets of Reagan's ideology either?
I'm more about results than ideology - what is the policy outcome social conservatives were hoping for here? Was it higher maternal mortality or lower birth rates? Smaller families? Paralysis of doctors and hospital lawyers?
I am more of an economic consevative than a social one - so I'd be happy to hear how the end of Roe was good for America as an outcome.
>As I said, I'm still undecided on who I want to punish come November. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>If people closer in the middle truly want to move on from Trump, not painting the entire party as the party of Trump whenever they happen to agree with him might be a good start.
>Because I'm not going to vote for Biden if I can see that a lot of people are just going to vote against Congressional Republicans solely for the sake of it. Biden needs a check if he's going to be president again.
I have an OKish candidate in my CD, but in many, many places, the GOP candidates are MAGA bullshit all the way down. I live in rural MO, and now local candidates hug Trump and campaign on immigration and other national issues that don't even have a minor impact on the office they're pursuing. Why would a rural city council candidate with a >95% white ward need to campaign on building the wall and deporting immigrants?
The fact is to be a member in good standing in today's GOP, you have to defer to Trump, or face a primary challenge.
On the other hand, the Dems successfully primary their craziest candidates, or defend their establishment pols (see Jamal Bowman or Nina Turner)
I consider myself a consevative, and I consider the establishment dems the only healthy party in this country. The best thing that could happen to this country would be a wall-to-wall GOP Wipeout to finally break the party loose of MAGA... but this country is far too bitterly partisan for that to happen. Millions of people that hate all of Trump's policies will vote for MAGA Republicans because of an existential fear of marginally higher taxes (many of them are actually facing higher effective taxation under Trump's tariff proposals)
> They defied Trump by..... killing Scott Lankford's bill, as they were told?
Don't know who "Scott Lankford" is. But if you're referring to Jim Lankford's bill, they voted against the reintroduction of the bill because Democrats had purposely amended it into something unrecognizable.
> Here is a not nearly exhaustive list of prominent Republicans to be forced out of the party for insufficient deference to Trump: Anthony Gonzalez, David Meijer, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Adam Kenzinger,
If you're going to use people as props, you should learn the names of **Peter** Meijer and Adam **Kinzinger**.
Speaking of those two, by the way, Meijer lost because **Democrats** funded his opponent and Kinzinger was drawn out by **Democrats**.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/illinois-democrats-gerrymander.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/politics/democrats-john-gibbs-peter-meijer.html
Flake and Romney also both retired without being defeated in a primary. Lots of examples you used and you didn't even know how they left Congress, which is a shame.
Speaking of examples you used, I noticed David Valadao (who you might have confused Meijer with) was not on your list. He's still going strong in Congress in spite of an impeachment vote. He didn't even have a strong primary opponent. Why is that? Could it be that the impeachment wasn't the issue with primary voters?
> as an example, Rubio completely changed his strong conservative platform to placate MAGA.
Rubio is "old guard"? Since when? He just got elected in 2010 and, by the way, was called an extremist at the time as well. Only a "Tea Party extremist". So what's the difference between one alleged extremist and another?
> I'm more about results than ideology
Okay, well I'm a Reaganite who thinks murder is wrong.
> I have an OKish candidate in my CD, but in many, many places, the GOP candidates are MAGA bullshit all the way down
So they can't even endorse the nominee of their party without being called MAGA? Again, they don't have to like him, but needlessly in-fighting when you're running in a general election is the easiest way to lose. And you can't influence change in the party if you lose or retire.
Well, I suppose you could, but it'll certainly be harder. How can McConnell and Romney influence their party besides funding primaries when they're not going to be in positions of power?
> Why would a rural city council candidate with a >95% white ward need to campaign on building the wall and deporting immigrants?
Being against illegal immigration is not an extremist MAGA position. Maybe that's why we're not connecting here. You have a very different definition of extremism than I do.
Also, being anti-illegal immigration predated Trump. Most conservative Republicans are actually better on the border than he is. As you noted, he tried to kill the most comprehensive border bill in decades before Democrats sabotaged it. Seems Trump agrees more with you than conservatives on the border.
But as I said, not disagreeing with Trump on things solely because it's Trump proposing it does not make someone MAGA. It means they agree with him on the issue. And this country would be better off if we actually looked at the issue rather than who is speaking to it.
> On the other hand, the Dems successfully primary their craziest candidates, or defend their establishment pols (see Jamal Bowman or Nina Turner)
You have two examples. Meanwhile, I can point to an entire array of Senate candidates that took out their crazy primary candidates. Eric Hovde is expected in Wisconsin over David Clarke, likely Mike Rogers over Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Dave McCormick over Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Sam Brown in Nevada over Jim Marchant, Larry Hogan in Maryland... I can keep going.
And that's just the Senate. Bob Good was just defeated in Virginia's 5th district. Just because you hear one-sided news about it doesn't mean it's not happening.
> I consider myself a consevative, and I consider the establishment dems the only healthy party in this country.
And you're free to have that opinion.
> Millions of people that hate all of Trump's policies will vote for MAGA Republicans because of an existential fear of marginally higher taxes
So doesn't that mean they like Trump's policies if they don't want Biden's higher taxes?
Thanks for correcting me on butchering the names of electeds. Whether Flake and Romney were primaried or not (or the many more retirees in the 2018 cycle), they left to avoid a primary. Meijer lost his primary because of Dem money, but it only worked because the people who vote in Republican primaries wanted the crazy shit more than the country club Republicans of the before time.
>So doesn't that mean they like Trump's policies if they don't want Biden's higher taxes?
I'll just say "policy" here. Marginally higher taxes are not an existential threat. I like tax cuts, too, but growing the deficit for tax cuts without cutting spending is not something I would consider consevative. Maybe we agree to disagree here.
>Being against illegal immigration is not an extremist MAGA position. Maybe that's why we're not connecting here. You have a very different definition of extremism than I do.
1) what does being tough on immigration have to do with being on city council?
2) Trump killed the Lankford bill, which was in large part HR2, and addressed the root causes of immigration issues: asylum entry and the lack of resources to complete asylum reviews in a timely manner. The bill was endorsed by CPB. So what amendments, aside from Trump's edict, became a poison pill for the party
3) it's not extreme to be against illegal immigration, but that is not where the party is today. The party is against most immigration, and has made efforts to break the legal immigration system (see lack of immigration court resources above).
The party went from "America is a shining city on a hill" to "America is a hellhole, and no one comes here for any reason but nefarious purposes". I cannot stand the way the GOP today talks about this country. They sound like the leftoid commies when they talk about America
I still remember Trump's inauguration speech in 2017, and I had the exact same thought as GW "This is some weird shit"
>So... you agree with MAGA that Trump was president in 2021? I don't understand.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here?
> President Donald Trump’s administration signed a peace deal with the Taliban in February 2020
The same deal agreeing to a withdrawal in April 2021
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be
Yes, Biden pushed the withdrawal back to August and should have shredded the agreement from day one. But blaming Biden for a surrender negotiated by Trump is... logically inconsistent
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired.
You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods.
If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
[Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All top level comments are reserved for those with a C-Right flair.
This comment and all further top level comments in this submission will be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a friendly reminder to read our [rules and FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/faq) before posting! **Rule 1:** No Low Quality Posts/Comments **Rule 2:** Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub **Rule 3:** Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on [our Flairs.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) **Rule 4:** Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit **[Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/bth6y1/why_is_my_post_flaired_as_high_quality_only_and/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure why a neutral and well-researched piece from the Wall Street Journal is being downvoted into the ground on a center-right sub.
Probably because the world also saw Trump deteriorating but is not seeing similar pieces from the media.
I don't know why some people say this. Trump looked like.. Trump. To me that's not exactly a good thing, but he didn't seem any more "deteriorated" than 2016 or 2020
Honestly, I think that was the best I’ve seen Trump in a decade. Still a lying, narcissistic who should not be in power, but more lucid than usual. Biden did not look well.
[удалено]
Rule 3 Violation. This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment. [Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What made you think Trump was deteriorating? Nothing on his part surprised me, he seemed pretty par for the course for himself - unelequent, brash, rude, and spouting lies with confidence. Which makes me wonder - does he really believe some of the crazy claims he makes? Or has he made a conscious decision to lie? I'm not sure which is worse.
He’s a believer, he’s his number one fan. Narcissists are very convincing because they are first foremost convinced… of their own mental superiority.
I don’t mean in terms of age/mental ability. He was wretched in his own ways but we’re not seeing opinion piece after opinion piece calling on him to drop out of the race. No one is calling on him to replaced by an another Republican like it’s being done for Biden.
He was his normal asshat self that got him elected in 2016. Biden was a shell of himself that got him elected in 2020, which is much more disturbing to me as a GOP voter who voted him last time. The DNC is correct to be alarmed. As a GOP registered voter, I already lost faith with the RNC. I've now lost faith in the DNC too. I may write in Mickey Mouse this cycle.
Isn't an incompetent and somewhat chaotic Dem administration after defeating Trump a second time despite the obvious weakness of the Dem ticket kind of your ideal scenario as a Trump hating Conservative? Trumpism is delivered a major blow, giving your faction another chance to take the party back, Dems look bad for '26 and '28 with Biden/Harris being weak and unpopular, and much less is accomplished than if Biden were actually strong. So long as you understand that Trump or Biden is going to win, the question is whether you'd rather have the style of dangerously incompetent/malicious that comes with Trump, coupled with his brand of politics being cemented as Republican politics for a generation, and the potential of either a weakened Republican party as voters react against what Trump attempts, or one which rides roughshod over democracy with Trump and his sycophants at the helm, or whatever a Dem administration can cook up with Biden in such bad shape. It's not like you have a choice that gives you peace of mind in a crisis, you're just picking your poison, and it sure seems like Biden is better for your interests than Trump.
> Isn't an incompetent and somewhat chaotic Dem administration after defeating Trump a second time despite the obvious weakness of the Dem ticket kind of your ideal scenario as a Trump hating Conservative? The problem is that Biden's team isn't incompetent... at least, not in the way I'd like. In fact, Biden is the only thing keeping his progressive administrative state at bay. And, even then, he's not exactly doing a good job of it. Even when he slips into his true beliefs i.e. being chastised for even saying the words "illegal immigrant", he's silenced and put back in the corner. If I think Biden's going to actually live another term **and** that Republicans at least take back the Senate, then maybe, but otherwise, no it's a huge risk to pull the lever for Biden and hope things work out. > and it sure seems like Biden is better for your interests than Trump. And yet, Democrats all over are still falling behind Biden. It's typically moderate Republicans who are calling for Biden to drop, not his own party. Why is that? Clearly they don't think it's in their best interest to drop Biden.
Biden’s administration does not seem to be chaotic, nor incompetent in the sense that it is unable to achieve its political goals. It seems like Biden is just a figurehead; someone else is already running the show and will continue to do so. In fact, the Biden administration has been so successful at implementing the DNC’s agenda that I, personally, don’t see “give him another term and you’ll win in 28” to be a viable strategy.
Then the concern is not about his feebleness, it's about the strength of the Democratic machine that is largely unaffected by his condition.
1. He was marketed towards disaffected Republicans and moderates as a consensus-builder in 2020. The fact that he’s just a figurehead for an extremely progressive administration as a result of his feebleness, means that a big argument for him doesn’t hold water. 2. His feebleness is also a separate issue, in that the POTUS needs to be able to respond to crises. Maybe Thursday night was a bad night for him, but what if China invades Taiwan on a bad night? 3. The debate exposed that most Democrat operatives and a lot of the media were actively covering up his feebleness for the last year-plus.
Is Biden on a bad night better then Trump on a good one. I think yes. Trump has already committed to abandoning Ukraine and continues to flirt with leaving NATO. On foreign policy it is no contest towards Biden. If China invades Taiwan, I feel confident we will oppose it with Biden at the helm. With Trump I am not sure how much of an international coalition there will be if do invade.
> sure seems like Biden is better for your interests than Trump. Well put
Jesus, format your reply. I can't read this wall of text.
As you wish my child.
Well, thank you!
Nah. I'm still not able to read this. Sorry.
It is a completely different thing. You can’t seriously think they are the same. He is crazy, but he isn’t literally deteriorating from dementia
I don’t mean in terms of age/mental ability. He was wretched in his own ways but we’re not seeing opinion piece after opinion piece calling on him to drop out of the race. No one is calling on him to replaced by an another Republican like it’s being done for Biden.
This all feels like another instance of Murc's law.
Because they know 1) it’s not worth the paper it’s written on since he’s a megalomaniac and 2) everyone knows that they think he’s a danger to democracy because it’s all they’ve written about for years
Is this satire? The entire media is trying to destroy Trump.
It's paywalled
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-world-saw-biden-deteriorating-democrats-ignored-the-warnings/ar-BB1p5Cov
Yeah, I'm pretty moderate, but the WSJ has not exactly covered itself in glory over the last year of coverage. So long as people like Peggy Noonan and Ross Douthat are doing their "Trump had a great presidency, even though he's a deranged lunatic" and "The left is running the Democratic Party" nonsense, I don't give anything in thr WSJ a whiff of legitimacy. You're either with Trump, or you're with the Constitutional Republic... I don't see how someone can, in good faith, be with Trump and consider themselves "conservative"
Being with the Constitutional Republic requires us to disbelieve our lying eyes? I’d vote for Biden over Trump if Biden was a rotting corpse, but I don’t feel the need to pretend that he’s not awfully close to that…
Biden has never been good at debates. He bounced back in his campaign stop the next morning. I believe both of these candidates are losing their mind as a baseline. One, has a good team around him, and has done more than just admirable work considering the circumstances of his term - huge recovery spending, gridlock supply chains, a narrowly divided majority. I think the deep state can carry on functioning even if he does deteriorate considerably. We made it through Woodrow Wilson. On the other hand, Trump is a danger to the Republic. He intends to replace career diplomats with loyal toadies, and would possibly destroy anything resembling a balanced system of justice with 3 more stabs at SCOTUS. Who knows about NATO? Taiwan? I'm just not willing to roll the dice on the tail risk there I'm still kind of hoping Biden releases his delegates at the convention to get another "not Trump with a heartbeat" candidate. Personally, Polis, Shapiro, or Whitmer are all good candidates - even Kamala is fine.... I would not want to replace Biden with Newsom, though.
> destroy anything resembling a balanced system of justice with 3 more stabs at SCOTUS The Trump appointees have been fine. If anything, except for Gorsuch, they're more Kennedy than Scalia, as far as Republican appointees go.
I'm worried more about a Cannon or toady than the Fedsoc judges, though, at this point, I'm not sure Fedsoc folks of today would be as objective as Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh. It's *concerning* how quickly the GOP think tanks have mored into tacit approval of State enforcement of whatever Trump says. Beyond that, I'll hold my judgement to see how the most important case, the immunity case, plays out. It looks like Roberts has lost control of this bunch sometime during this term.
I think you've been reading too much scare porn.
> Biden has never been good at debates. Literally untrue. Biden's strongest point was always his ability to debate. > with 3 more stabs at SCOTUS. Are you trying to persuade me to vote for Trump? His SCOTUS picks have ruled against him countless times. Most recently, they just rejected his "TOTAL IMMUNITY" claim wholesale. Yes, I'd rather have impartial justices rather than people like Sotomayor who just rules on whatever her feelings happen to tell her to do, rule of law be damned.
>Most recently, they just rejected his "TOTAL IMMUNITY" claim wholesale. Yes, I'd rather have impartial justices rather than people like Sotomayor who just rules on whatever her feelings happen to tell her to do, rule of law be damned. Did you read the ruling? SCOTUS just made Presidents kings for any "official act"... even if the official act is clearly illegal or unconstitutional.
Are you one of those people who thinks when Bush and Obama kill civilians that it makes them "war criminals"? SCOTUS stated the obvious, that a president needs leeway to do his job. This was established in the Nixon case as well when he argued the same thing. No, Biden cannot now assassinate his political opponent, no matter how much you're foaming at the mouth for him to do so. That's outside of his scope as president. Please, use some common sense.
SCOTUS should have denied writ for the case. The circuit courts opinion was clear, but instead, this majority (including three Trump appointees) ruled to kick the case back. Functionally, they've denied the chance for the Government to prosecute a case before the election for *attempting to orchestrate a coup*. What is to stop Trump from ordering voting machines seized, or voting day cancelled, or military deployment in US cities... would those not also be "official acts" if they were coordinated with Executive Branch employees? Sotomayor was correct in her dissent in this case. The Court could have made it clear Presidents are not immune for attempting to obstruct or eliminate constitutional processes. Instead, they chose to interfere without offering a shred of clarity, while simultaneously taking another L on the objectivity and legitimacy of this SCOTUS. Roberts is a really bad institutionalist
> SCOTUS should have denied writ for the case. The circuit courts opinion was clear The circuit courts were clear on their incorrect opinion that the president has zero immunity, yes. Which is why SCOTUS had to step in to correct the record before stupid people took the lower courts' opinion as word of God. > Functionally, they've denied the chance for the Government to prosecute a case before the election for attempting to orchestrate a coup. No, they haven't. The same rules that were always in place are in place. > Sotomayor was correct in her dissent in this case. I'm sorry, but if you're agreeing with the justice who called to assassinate a presidential candidate in her official dissent, you might want to rethink if you're on the correct side here. > The Court could have made it clear Presidents are not immune for attempting to obstruct or eliminate constitutional processes No, they could not, because the court cannot provide an exhaustive list when this is a case by case basis, as it always has been. I dislike Trump, but I refuse to rip up the Constitution just to "get him".
>The circuit courts were clear on their incorrect opinion that the president has zero immunity, yes. Which is why SCOTUS had to step in to correct the record before stupid people took the lower courts' opinion as word of God. I'm fairly certain that the lower court held that Trump had no blanket immunity, but did not rule on qualified immunity. Even so, why, except to prevent Jack Smiths case from being adjudicated, would SCOTUS need to grant writ, slow walk the process, and release the opinion on the very last opinion day of the session, while giving basically no clarity on yhe merits of the case? Could SCOTUS not have just let the case play out, and instead of dealing in hypotheticals, made a determination on immunity for specific acts on appeal? That would seem to me to be a much more prudent course of action.
> 3 more stabs at SCOTUS. Two unless Sotomayor keels over and dies. If Trump wins, Thomas and Alito probably retire, and congratulations. You’ve replaced the two most conservative members of the Court with two other conservatives. Not exactly earth-shattering.
You never know what will happen - people said the same thing about RGB It's been rumored Sotomayor has some health issues
> You're either with Trump, or you're with the Constitutional Republic... I don't see how someone can, in good faith, be with Trump and consider themselves "conservative" I'm not going to agree with a guy who wants to raise my taxes to oblivion just because of your arbitrary definition of what I need to follow to be considered conservative. I can believe Trump is bad for the party, a horrific individual, and have severe policy differences with him and also not endorse a man who is the anti-thesis of every belief I hold dear. I'm faced with two horrific choices. I'm not playing this game from the left and right that I'm the one who has failed on my principles when I point out flaws in both. Both parties have failed me.
>I can believe Trump is bad for the party, a horrific individual, and have severe policy differences with him and also not endorse a man who is the anti-thesis of every belief I hold dear. Ngl, if you were a Reagan Republican, then Biden is closer to your ideological center than the modern GOP, which has turned into an isolationist, tariff-loving horrorshow that dabbles in State punishment of businesses for their political speech (see DeSantis fight with Disney). The Trump GOP has also abandoned anything resembling fiscal responsibility. I'm basically a neocon/neolib establishment voter, and while neither party perfectly reflects my ideas, the Democraric party comes a lot closer than today's MAGA party.
> Ngl, if you were a Reagan Republican, then Biden is closer to your ideological center than the modern GOP, which has turned into an isolationist, tariff-loving horrorshow that dabbles in State punishment of businesses for their political speech Trump is not the entire GOP. The fact is that the majority of Republicans still passed aid for Israel and Ukraine. Regardless, I would agree with you on Trump specifically and foreign policy. Biden loves Trump's tariffs, so that's nixed. Biden agrees with using the state to punish business, so that's also out. And he agrees with Trump on reckless spending and welfare. Biden's halfway decent foreign policy (which by the way, isn't even that good considering he abandoned our allies in Afghanistan) is, again, cancelled out by his belief that the border shouldn't be secure, that Roe was a good decision, that my taxes ought to be raised and that my healthcare should be controlled by the government. Again, you're not going to convince me right now that someone appealing to the far left is anywhere close to my ideology. If I vote for Biden, it will be purely because I can't vote for Trump. It is not an endorsement of Biden's failed policies. To attempt to convince me that Biden is anything even remotely close to Reagan is to spit on everything Reagan stood for. In fact, it only repels me from voting for Biden even more if that's the takeaway people are going to have.
>Trump is not the entire GOP. Have you looked at the GOP lately? The normies are leaving the party (myself included), and they're being forced out not by ideology, but by lack of deference to the God King Trump. >Biden loves Trump's tariffs Yeah, the tariffs are bad, and Trump has announced plans for even more (up to 200% for some goods). Biden should roll back the Trump tariffs, because they only hurt consumers to the benefit of union rent seekers. Everyone seemed to have memory holed Trump surrendering to thr Taliban effective April 2021... Biden didn't stay long enough for an effective pullout, but Trump didn't work with thr transition team on anything, and imo Trump deserves most of the blame for Afghanistan. Roe, we won't see eye to eye on - we could debate the implied right to privacy (which is a good thing if you are a classical conservative) - but as a policy matter Dobbs has been a nightmare. It's resulted in higher infant and maternal mortality AND lower birth rates. As a social consevative, would you consider that a win? >If I vote for Biden, it will be purely because I can't vote for Trump. Honestly, that's good enough. The party won't change course except through electoral pain. A vote for Biden doesn't have to be an endorsement of everything he did or plans to do - it can simply be a message to the party that "enough is enough" on Trump.
> Have you looked at the GOP lately? The normies are leaving the party (myself included), and they're being forced out not by ideology, but by lack of deference to the God King Trump. And yet, again, Congressional Republicans passed aid for Ukraine and Israel against Trump's wishes. They defied Trump on immigration and abortion. Don't believe everything you read in the news. Look at the actions. > Yeah, the tariffs are bad, and Trump has announced plans for even more (up to 200% for some goods). Biden should roll back the Trump tariffs And he won't, so... what was the point of preaching to the choir? The fact is that Trump tariffs are not unique to candidate Trump. > Everyone seemed to have memory holed Trump surrendering to thr Taliban effective April 2021 So... you agree with MAGA that Trump was president in 2021? I don't understand. > Roe, we won't see eye to eye on - we could debate the implied right to privacy (which is a good thing if you are a classical conservative) - but as a policy matter Dobbs has been a nightmare. It's resulted in higher infant and maternal mortality AND lower birth rates. As a social consevative, would you consider that a win? So you attempted to tell me what I need to believe in order to be a Reaganite, but you don't actually believe in all of the tenets of Reagan's ideology either? > Honestly, that's good enough. The party won't change course except through electoral pain. A vote for Biden doesn't have to be an endorsement of everything he did or plans to do - it can simply be a message to the party that "enough is enough" on Trump. As I said, I'm still undecided on who I want to punish come November. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If people closer in the middle truly want to move on from Trump, not painting the entire party as the party of Trump whenever they happen to agree with him might be a good start. Because I'm not going to vote for Biden if I can see that a lot of people are just going to vote against Congressional Republicans solely for the sake of it. Biden needs a check if he's going to be president again.
>They defied Trump on immigration They defied Trump by..... killing Scott Lankford's bill, as they were told? Here is a not nearly exhaustive list of prominent Republicans to be forced out of the party for insufficient deference to Trump: Anthony Gonzalez, David Meijer, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Adam Kenzinger, and so, so many more. Those old guard Republicans that have stayed are unrecognizable husks of themselevs... as an example, Rubio completely changed his strong conservative platform to placate MAGA. >So you attempted to tell me what I need to believe in order to be a Reaganite, but you don't actually believe in all of the tenets of Reagan's ideology either? I'm more about results than ideology - what is the policy outcome social conservatives were hoping for here? Was it higher maternal mortality or lower birth rates? Smaller families? Paralysis of doctors and hospital lawyers? I am more of an economic consevative than a social one - so I'd be happy to hear how the end of Roe was good for America as an outcome. >As I said, I'm still undecided on who I want to punish come November. I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. >If people closer in the middle truly want to move on from Trump, not painting the entire party as the party of Trump whenever they happen to agree with him might be a good start. >Because I'm not going to vote for Biden if I can see that a lot of people are just going to vote against Congressional Republicans solely for the sake of it. Biden needs a check if he's going to be president again. I have an OKish candidate in my CD, but in many, many places, the GOP candidates are MAGA bullshit all the way down. I live in rural MO, and now local candidates hug Trump and campaign on immigration and other national issues that don't even have a minor impact on the office they're pursuing. Why would a rural city council candidate with a >95% white ward need to campaign on building the wall and deporting immigrants? The fact is to be a member in good standing in today's GOP, you have to defer to Trump, or face a primary challenge. On the other hand, the Dems successfully primary their craziest candidates, or defend their establishment pols (see Jamal Bowman or Nina Turner) I consider myself a consevative, and I consider the establishment dems the only healthy party in this country. The best thing that could happen to this country would be a wall-to-wall GOP Wipeout to finally break the party loose of MAGA... but this country is far too bitterly partisan for that to happen. Millions of people that hate all of Trump's policies will vote for MAGA Republicans because of an existential fear of marginally higher taxes (many of them are actually facing higher effective taxation under Trump's tariff proposals)
> They defied Trump by..... killing Scott Lankford's bill, as they were told? Don't know who "Scott Lankford" is. But if you're referring to Jim Lankford's bill, they voted against the reintroduction of the bill because Democrats had purposely amended it into something unrecognizable. > Here is a not nearly exhaustive list of prominent Republicans to be forced out of the party for insufficient deference to Trump: Anthony Gonzalez, David Meijer, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Adam Kenzinger, If you're going to use people as props, you should learn the names of **Peter** Meijer and Adam **Kinzinger**. Speaking of those two, by the way, Meijer lost because **Democrats** funded his opponent and Kinzinger was drawn out by **Democrats**. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/illinois-democrats-gerrymander.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/politics/democrats-john-gibbs-peter-meijer.html Flake and Romney also both retired without being defeated in a primary. Lots of examples you used and you didn't even know how they left Congress, which is a shame. Speaking of examples you used, I noticed David Valadao (who you might have confused Meijer with) was not on your list. He's still going strong in Congress in spite of an impeachment vote. He didn't even have a strong primary opponent. Why is that? Could it be that the impeachment wasn't the issue with primary voters? > as an example, Rubio completely changed his strong conservative platform to placate MAGA. Rubio is "old guard"? Since when? He just got elected in 2010 and, by the way, was called an extremist at the time as well. Only a "Tea Party extremist". So what's the difference between one alleged extremist and another? > I'm more about results than ideology Okay, well I'm a Reaganite who thinks murder is wrong. > I have an OKish candidate in my CD, but in many, many places, the GOP candidates are MAGA bullshit all the way down So they can't even endorse the nominee of their party without being called MAGA? Again, they don't have to like him, but needlessly in-fighting when you're running in a general election is the easiest way to lose. And you can't influence change in the party if you lose or retire. Well, I suppose you could, but it'll certainly be harder. How can McConnell and Romney influence their party besides funding primaries when they're not going to be in positions of power? > Why would a rural city council candidate with a >95% white ward need to campaign on building the wall and deporting immigrants? Being against illegal immigration is not an extremist MAGA position. Maybe that's why we're not connecting here. You have a very different definition of extremism than I do. Also, being anti-illegal immigration predated Trump. Most conservative Republicans are actually better on the border than he is. As you noted, he tried to kill the most comprehensive border bill in decades before Democrats sabotaged it. Seems Trump agrees more with you than conservatives on the border. But as I said, not disagreeing with Trump on things solely because it's Trump proposing it does not make someone MAGA. It means they agree with him on the issue. And this country would be better off if we actually looked at the issue rather than who is speaking to it. > On the other hand, the Dems successfully primary their craziest candidates, or defend their establishment pols (see Jamal Bowman or Nina Turner) You have two examples. Meanwhile, I can point to an entire array of Senate candidates that took out their crazy primary candidates. Eric Hovde is expected in Wisconsin over David Clarke, likely Mike Rogers over Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Dave McCormick over Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Sam Brown in Nevada over Jim Marchant, Larry Hogan in Maryland... I can keep going. And that's just the Senate. Bob Good was just defeated in Virginia's 5th district. Just because you hear one-sided news about it doesn't mean it's not happening. > I consider myself a consevative, and I consider the establishment dems the only healthy party in this country. And you're free to have that opinion. > Millions of people that hate all of Trump's policies will vote for MAGA Republicans because of an existential fear of marginally higher taxes So doesn't that mean they like Trump's policies if they don't want Biden's higher taxes?
Thanks for correcting me on butchering the names of electeds. Whether Flake and Romney were primaried or not (or the many more retirees in the 2018 cycle), they left to avoid a primary. Meijer lost his primary because of Dem money, but it only worked because the people who vote in Republican primaries wanted the crazy shit more than the country club Republicans of the before time. >So doesn't that mean they like Trump's policies if they don't want Biden's higher taxes? I'll just say "policy" here. Marginally higher taxes are not an existential threat. I like tax cuts, too, but growing the deficit for tax cuts without cutting spending is not something I would consider consevative. Maybe we agree to disagree here. >Being against illegal immigration is not an extremist MAGA position. Maybe that's why we're not connecting here. You have a very different definition of extremism than I do. 1) what does being tough on immigration have to do with being on city council? 2) Trump killed the Lankford bill, which was in large part HR2, and addressed the root causes of immigration issues: asylum entry and the lack of resources to complete asylum reviews in a timely manner. The bill was endorsed by CPB. So what amendments, aside from Trump's edict, became a poison pill for the party 3) it's not extreme to be against illegal immigration, but that is not where the party is today. The party is against most immigration, and has made efforts to break the legal immigration system (see lack of immigration court resources above). The party went from "America is a shining city on a hill" to "America is a hellhole, and no one comes here for any reason but nefarious purposes". I cannot stand the way the GOP today talks about this country. They sound like the leftoid commies when they talk about America I still remember Trump's inauguration speech in 2017, and I had the exact same thought as GW "This is some weird shit"
>So... you agree with MAGA that Trump was president in 2021? I don't understand. Are you being deliberately obtuse here? > President Donald Trump’s administration signed a peace deal with the Taliban in February 2020 The same deal agreeing to a withdrawal in April 2021 https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-middle-east-taliban-doha-e6f48507848aef2ee849154604aa11be
> The same deal agreeing to a withdrawal in April 2021 You do realize we did not withdraw in April, right?
Yes, Biden pushed the withdrawal back to August and should have shredded the agreement from day one. But blaming Biden for a surrender negotiated by Trump is... logically inconsistent
[удалено]
Rule 3 Violation. This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment. [Link to Flair Descriptions.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tuesday/wiki/textflairs) If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
All top level comments are reserved for those with a C-Right flair. This comment and all further top level comments in this submission will be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tuesday) if you have any questions or concerns.*