3 ms·
Just to clarify, I agreed with the OP that it wasn't a good idea. It's bad economics, bad precedent, bad foreign policy, and a bunch of other bad things. I was
by jfengel 1y ago
Just to clarify, I agreed with the OP that it wasn't a good idea. It's bad economics, bad precedent, bad foreign policy, and a bunch of other bad things.
I was speaking solely about politics, i.e. winning elections. And if you can't win elections, none of your other policies matter.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> bad foreign policy From my reading, this is what they seem to have meant by "bad politics". It's just not clear that OP meant "politics" strictly as "winning elections". I agree that it's good domestic politics. It may have even been seen as a tradeoff by the administration.
- djridnnxnd 1y agoThis is why politics is where it is — winning one election is less important than shifting the Overton window. The right wing know this and it’s their focus. When ‘moderates’ lean right to ‘win elections’ they shoot their future political aims in the foot