politics
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
view the rest of the comments
did you read the ai slop yahoo article or the Washington post op?
The original article read more to say trump was trying to make a dictator machine, like russia, NKz or china, not concentration camps,
of course trump would still support and share it if it was.
Im not saying he's agianst putting us in concentration camps, he already has stsrted, im saying this was not our red flag
It's a Washington Times op, not the Washington Post. It is not an "ai slop yahoo article", but Snopes article aggregated on Yahoo News.
Like you're trying to attack the credibility of these criticisms while seemingly being completely unaware of who wrote them or who they're responding to.
The stuff on yahoo, seems like ai slop, it keeps repeating the same thing, maybe that's how the yahoo aggregate works idk, im not familiar with it. I was not attacking the Washington post op, I said whats linked, the yahoo thing feels like what id expect from an ai generated article and the Washington post opinion piece didn't seem to read so much about "gays in concentration camp" but that trump seems to (which I agree with) want to change army culture to a more "Masculine strength" (Like China, russia and NK) where its not about the effectiveness or such of the military but the "strength" of its individual soldiers.
It seems more pointed to trump trying to make his own dictator army, like stalin, or hitler, with the emphasis people seemed to give on the image, I expected more commentary on "how the army should be used to control undesirables" or something, which Im sure trump wants,
but what I read was about trump trying to copy the ultra masculine face of armies in NK or Russia but instead of any discussion or that, everyone it talking about the image, like trump was smart enough to be liking this for the image and not him agreeing "Ya ya, I want army to be stronk"
Again, it was a Washington Times article, not Post. The Washington Post was not linked because neither Trump nor Snopes cited them. Likewise, whether or not the "stuff on yahoo" that "seems like ai slop" to you doesn't change whether it is AI authored (it isn't, it was written by a human working at Snopes and posted to Snopes) nor whether it is accurate (it is). Trump did post the article with the image in question to his Truth Social account on March 9, 2025.
The discussion raised by people in this thread is not about the content of the linked Washington Times article, it is about the fact that the president of the United States is using iconography developed by the Nazis in the same manner as the Nazis. That said, to take the obvious bait you've set up, we've seen how ineffective both Russia and North Korea's army are. They are clearly a poor model for a well run and organised army, regardless of their supposedly "masculine strength". I also reject your claim that strength is a purely masculine trait. The US has had a (if begrudgingly) diverse military for as long as it has been a global superpower. Gay people, trans people, people of color, and more recently women have been contributing successfully to that strength for longer than you or I have been alive. Many of those groups are typically cast as non masculine, yet clearly display great strength.
I'm not going to be responding to you any further, I don't really feel like you're engaging in good faith.