During a deposition in his civil case, the former president offered a series of defenses, digressions and meandering explanations of his political and professional dealings.
Do you know how to tell when politicians are being hypocritical? When they open thier mouth. You could do literally nothing but point out hypocrisys of poloticians all day for your entire adult life and never run put. It is the equivalent of saying “bruh”.
Don’t see why this is down voted so much. People spend way too much time focusing on hypocrisy. It’s freaking boring and it sways absolutely no one’s opinion
Apathy - people stop voting for parties that can be a counterweight to the far right.
Abbreviated analysis/Feelings over facts - people are more likely to fall for politicians presenting themselves as underdogs who are going to revolutionise the political landscape, which is a strategy fascists like to use. “Drain the swamp” is a perfect example for that, and if I remember correctly, there were a lot of potential Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. I know both are more or less opposites, but both provided a canvas for people’s feelings that “politicians are all the same” and that fundamental change needs to happen. The latter is true, but with proper analysis shouldn’t lead to voting for the far right.
Do you know how to tell when politicians are being hypocritical? When they open thier mouth. You could do literally nothing but point out hypocrisys of poloticians all day for your entire adult life and never run put. It is the equivalent of saying “bruh”.
Time for your meds
bruh
Don’t see why this is down voted so much. People spend way too much time focusing on hypocrisy. It’s freaking boring and it sways absolutely no one’s opinion
The both-sides-narrative only helps the far-right.
(serious) could you expound on what you mean by this?
deleted by creator
The far right is seriously outnumbered. Encouraging people to apathy helps them, because most people who get involved are their enemies.
Two possibilities:
Apathy - people stop voting for parties that can be a counterweight to the far right.
Abbreviated analysis/Feelings over facts - people are more likely to fall for politicians presenting themselves as underdogs who are going to revolutionise the political landscape, which is a strategy fascists like to use. “Drain the swamp” is a perfect example for that, and if I remember correctly, there were a lot of potential Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. I know both are more or less opposites, but both provided a canvas for people’s feelings that “politicians are all the same” and that fundamental change needs to happen. The latter is true, but with proper analysis shouldn’t lead to voting for the far right.
Personally, I think both sides have their issues, but the issues the right has are waaaay worse than the issues the left has.
So just saying “both sides have issues” makes it a binary argument when the degrees of how negative their issues are really matters.