Not when the chief apologist is Trump they don't.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
148 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4979 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I read this as: "Some Republicans haven't yet been paid off, are now bitter and sounding off about it."
So they are turning on Trump right.... right?
No they are not. They are essentially all Putin employees at this point
It's so transparent.
Putin gets Tucker to come over, platforms himself to the idiots in the US, they go around on news interviews saying how he's not so bad, Putin has Navalny killed n an obvious way, cognitive dissonance ensues, Republicans become further entrenched rather than admit they are beholden to a dictator and his boss, Putin.
It's like a mob boss putting a cigarette out in a bought cop's beer he gave him then insisting he finish it. A little reminder of who is in charge.
There is still some contestation within the Republicans - unfortunately not as strong in the House as in the Senate. Some strong words feature in the article:
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called Carlson Russia’s “useful idiot.” After Navalny’s death, he added: “History will not be kind to those in America who make apologies for Putin and praise Russian autocracy. Nor will history be kind to America’s leaders who stay silent because they fear backlash from online pundits.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) urged fellow Republican and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to “spend less time pushing Russian propaganda.”
A top political aide to Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) promoted Young’s denunciation of Navalny’s death by saying, “My U.S. Senator is not a venal Putin apologist, but I’m less sure about yours.”
Presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Navalny was killed by the “same Putin who Donald Trump praises and defends.” Haley soon noted that, while Trump weighed in repeatedly on NATO this week and posted dozens of times on Truth Social on Friday, he hasn’t yet mentioned Navalny . Former Trump vice president Mike Pence posted, more generally, “There is no room in the Republican Party for apologists for Putin.
This won't influence my opinion of Republicans at all. They've gone way past the point where I will ever even consider forgiving them for all the treasonous bullshit they've foisted on us.
And the fascist bullshit they're actively planning (see Project 2025).
Idk, I could muster some forgiveness if it meant they flipped into irrelevance.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The confluence of events has suddenly led to some stark comments from the more anti-Putin wing of the Republican Party, which set about deriding any Putin apologists and Russian propagandists in their midst.
In addition to Carlson’s comments about Putin’s killing opponents, former congressman Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and conservative influencers quickly likened Navalny’s death to Trump’s criminal charges.
But a significant and influential segment of the party has demonstrated a tendency toward a brand of moral relativism and even authoritarianism that creates an opening for giving Putin a pass.
A number I keep coming back to: Shortly after it was revealed in late 2016 that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump, an Economist/YouGov poll showed a sharp increase in favorable GOP views of Putin.
Influential voices on the right have spent years creating a permission structure for shrugging at things like Navalny’s death (see: Jamal Khashoggi).
Republican Russia hawks have increasingly lost the will to fight those battles, as their response to Trump’s NATO comments demonstrated just a few short days ago.
The original article contains 735 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Tell me who won the cold war without telling me who won the cold war.
I'm sure they'll come around.