ReConsider Media combines podcasts and articles to discuss international and domestic politics, political structures, and the news of today. We strive to provide a reliable, unbiased resource for processing information and understanding the context around many of the issues we face.
Challenge the conventional wisdom on critical politics issues and reconsider politics with us.
I live in Boston, so I get to hear a lot of concerns about Trump as president.
Every president gets flak, often unfair or hyperbolic, from people in the political opposition.
But there's something unique about opposition to Trump that I haven't heard said about Bush, McCain, Romney, or Rubio/Kasich/Cruz: there is a strong strain of opinion that Trump is fundamentally unfit to be president.
When Mike Pence gets brought up as an alternative, a very important litmus test occurs.
I think it was ABC World News Tonight that, last night (June 4) called the Supreme Court's cake-maker decision a "bombshell" ruling. That is false, it is not.
CNN claims--I roll my eyes--that the ruling somehow "fuels the debate on gay rights." Please.
In a hyperpartsian era full of 5-4, "partisan line" Supreme Court decisions, it's incredibly important to recognize how different this was. It was not partisan, it was not narrow, it was not a "bombshell," and it doesn't fuel anything.
Plato wrote about it in Republic; Machiavelli wrote about it in The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
What they saw through the history of governments, and what they predicted in the future, was a cycle. Perhaps an endless one. Fukuyama said history ended. He may be wrong.