I don’t think (reasonable) people think that? I certainly don’t. I call the grifters out for being grifters but there are plenty of commentators I don’t align with at all who I can still say I believe are honest even if I don’t agree with them.
Anyone who ever fundamentally changed/evolved their opinion on something must automatically be grifting according to many. What is and is not representative of “grifting” is incredibly subjective. I just think that word is laughably overused now. It’s the new “xenophobic”.
Maybe it is overused, I don’t know, just anecdotally I don’t think so in what I hear or consume but that’s very subjective. I do feel like we live in a time where it can be used a lot more than it used to be and still not be over used because there are so many freaking grifters out there. Not just politics either.
Have we ever had a President or Congressional party leader in our lifetime who did not financially enrich themselves some along the way at the expense of the American voter? I would also be curious to know who in our media landscape (legacy media infrastructure or independent online/social media) are definitely NOT grifters in your mind? And why are they not grifters? Just curious to learn more about what is and is not considered "grifting" from those who don't always see things like I do, especially as it pertains to American politics.
Grifter A con man. Someone who pulls confidence games. A person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud By this definition, in my mind, Trump is the consumate grifter. He was doing it before he was elected President. And in doing so gave the term a platform. It just so happens, he determined that he could make bank as a Republican candidate. And after he caught the car, he learned that politics was the ultimate con. And the power that came with that position allowed him to grift in ways he never dreamed. My answer to the above question: Jimmy Carter was not a grifter. EDIT: In bipartisan fairness. I don't think Gerald Ford was a grifter.
A more local example would be Bob Corker. Unfortunately grifters are so rarely challenged now they’re dumber and more shameless than ever. Tommy Tuberville being a senator is just bonkers.
People who were already ungodly rich before being a politician don't bother me near as much as people who entered office as an average person only to leave office with a couple hundred milly in the bank like Feinstein and Pelosi. To me people like Pelosi printing themselves money is far more egregious of a sin. Or these ex President's who are paid millions of bucks to speak for a few min and launder all their shit through "charity foundations".
Not knowing Candice Owens' origin story, maybe she changed, maybe she didn't. I don't know. I would say she makes her money by provocation. It just so happens that there seems to be more money made off of the hard Right and the conspiracy clans. In my lifetime, Rush Limbaugh was the king of Right wing provocation money makers. I don't have any stats to support that perception. It is just a perception.
You aren’t wrong. It’s a lot harder to name individual grifters on the left. Still plenty of grift though. Just occurs more on an institutional level. BLM? An incredible grift. DEI on college campuses and in large companies? Absolutely wild. ESG? Such a big grift that it’s already dead.
I’d argue any political talking head on legacy media platforms outside of basically Fox News are carrying water on behalf of the Corporate Left interests. Anna Navarro, Joy Reid, Joe Scarborough, ect. Then on the ever prevailing alternative media side you have the Pod Save America, Young Turks, Lincoln Projects of the world. But again I’d wonder, are these people literally “grifting” (ie saying shit they don’t even believe in for personal financial gain) or are they just doing their job because it pays really well to espouse their political pov like everyone else in the political media universe with a platform of any kind do. BLM however is absolutely the ultimate grift. As is ESG and most DEI ideology initiatives
The uni party establishment political graft is why Trump happened to begin with. Nobody in national politics is Mother Teresa publicly serving solely from the purity of their heart on behalf of the American people. Hell, even Mother Teresa herself was a shameless opportunist
If I wanted to stop (reduce) political graft, Trump is the last grifter, I would hire for the job. That being said, alot of people believed his con. Alot of people still do.
You not realizing that particular post literally has nothing to do with what was said in tonight's GOP primary debate is a you thing. But you'd have to be Hellen Keller to not understand how both parties wildly spend like drunken sailors, favor insider trading, have a penchant for championing continually never ending foreign wars, and are all beholden to their big donor interests over the interests of the American people at large. The illusion of choice the establishment DC class collectively bestows upon Americans is a thing.
Sure, you can string words into sentences, but that doesn't make them logical. All you are really saying is both major parties have to operate the US government in the real world. Is that what the uniparty is? Reality? Actually, this now does make sense. Folks complaining about these things like they are all avoidable simple choices are against reality. Got it, thanks.
Imagine comparing the stances expressed on the ME conflict and pretending like both parties are equally aggressive or the same on issues. Hell, i think it is funny that many pro Palestinians are calling Biden "genocide joe" and saying they won't vote for him, while the opposition is talking about deporting them. They talk about a uniparty too. [uck fay] around and find out I guess? Biden has stood by Israel while simultaneously being the only meaningful friend Palestinians have. These pro Palestinians are indeed fools. Israel isn't going away, and appeals to who "really" is of the land depend on a blood and soil rhetoric that isn't materially real. The answer is not in a religion. They have to get along, and that is going to require at least two states for the foreseeable future.
