They've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The current administration is the logical result of fear and ignorance and xenophobia being elevated to our primary motivations, rather than merely being the position of a few embarrassing reactionary cranks. A prerequisite for winning elections in half the country today is that you must be the dumbest and meanest and most corrupt motherfucker the voters have ever seen. If you're not, somebody dumber and meaner and more corrupt will come along to push you out (e.g. Paxton in Texas for a current example, but it's the entirety of the Republican party and a not insignificant part of the Democratic party).

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>They've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

This is revisionism. The agenda of al-Qaeda was to establish a caliphate. The whole "al‑Qaeda Plot to Just Sit Back and Enjoy Collapse of United States" meme was just a pivot after they got pummeled by the US army, after 9/11. That's not to say the US won, but the US losing isn't the same as al‑Qaeda winning.

>al-Qaeda[a] is a pan-Islamist militant organization led by Sunni Islamist jihadists who self-identify as a vanguard spearheading a global Islamist revolution to unite the Muslim world under a supra-national Islamic caliphate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

	▲	SwellJoe 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Did they need the real estate under the World Trade Center to establish a caliphate?

▲

lokar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

American politics has often been about pitting one group against another. Convincing them that others are benefiting at their expense, or that they will in the future.

▲

earth-tattoo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If you think democratic party is any less corrupt than republican, you are already biased

▲

dabraham1248 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To rip off my own comment from a couple of months ago:

This kind of reflexive both-sides-ism works to obfuscate the _huge_ difference in scale, _and_ the occasional, small-but-real attempts of mostly democrats to do something about it.

Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.

McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.

For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.

▲

EMIRELADERO an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. A difference of degree is still a difference, and Trump 2 is vastly and openly more corrupt than any other administration, Democratic or Republican.

	▲	lokar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think some 19th century administrations could compete.

▲

KyleTheDev an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"If you don't think this ridiculous thing that I believe, you're biased and wrong!"

The current republican party is comedically more corrupt than the current democratic party.