Yes I think it is, and I think the rhetoric around Trump is hyperbole and fearmongering too.

Not that you can't criticize them, I just don't see exaggeration being interesting or helpful there. Also I think caring about certain corruption or conflicts of interest when it happens to politicians one disagrees with is fairly easy to be seen as being divisive or politically motivated even if it's not. I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct.

Musk isn't going to be immune to federal regulators. I'm sure he'll get the kinds of favors that come with buying politicians as all the rest of them get though.

▲

mschuster91 8 months ago | parent [-]

> Yes I think it is, and I think the rhetoric around Trump is hyperbole and fearmongering too.

Well just reading through Project 2025 is very sobering. It's not like old times where what they wanted had to be read through the lines any more, it's right out in the open what they want to do - and even getting a quarter of their plans actually passed through is a very, very troubling perspective.

> I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct.

A sad consequence of people no longer debating policy on a shared common ground based on facts, but on tribalism, lies and propaganda instead.

▲

starspangled 8 months ago | parent [-]

I shouldn't have brought up Trump, the subject never goes anywhere useful in an online debate. That was just my opinion, and other opinions and fears are not invalid.

> > I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct.

> A sad consequence of people no longer debating policy on a shared common ground based on facts, but on tribalism, lies and propaganda instead.

Yep. When they do that it does make you wonder who shares common ground with whom, and who spreads lies and propaganda about what.

	▲	monkeyfun 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		I just seriously wanna praise, first without commentary, that you just said >other opinions and fears are not invalid And then for commentary: I'm the sort of person "intense" enough that I'd want to pounce even on your comment about not bringing up trump, but that overall phrasing was such a perfect way to communicate what you mean, and your good intentions, to me when you at first read (to me) as apologist and unwarrantedly dismissive. That's all, often in these times it feels hard to even achieve this basic level of communication across personal and political differences. I really admire it.