ive heard some people theorizing his nomination is also a distraction from Tulsi Gabbards nomination . Gaetz is monopolizing most of the conversation around the nominations when he has a shaky chance at being confirmed at all. Gabbard is way more likely to cause serious damage to national security.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10181 readers
113 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I expected to be offended and/or astonished by a ridiculously transparent bit of sanewashing here, but you know... I think I actually might agree.
It does seem to be a valid point - Gaetz is a grotesquely destructive demagogue and Trump sycophant, but he's also a buffoon, and that's undoubtedly better than a grotesquely destructive demagogue and Trump sycophant who's also a smart and devious and highly skilled politician.
Huh...
It's a bit like the logic of why Trump may be better than De'Satan, he's a reckless destructive arse, but at least he's stupid too.
Problem is though now they have a pile of people behind that 2025 doc to make up for their own lack of knowledge...
I mean, it also forced him to resign from Congress and he's also unlikely to survive the confirmation process, especially if the ethics report is released...
Either way, that's a good outcome I suppose.
This logic is going to keep getting trotted out throughout the trump presidency. In some cases it'll be true. In this case I think it could be. In many cases it won't be , simply because destroying things is easier than building things and they're mostly there to destroy .