u/drubus_dong

So apparently the White House called up FIFA president Gianni Infantino personally to "review" Balogun's red card after the Bosnia match. Ban gets suspended days later. Trump takes a victory lap on Truth Social thanking FIFA for "reversing a great injustice."

Am I the only one who finds this insane? This isn't some random ref controversy. This is the sitting President of the United States picking up the phone to lean on the head of an international sports organization he's cozy with (free tickets, a literal "peace prize" Infantino invented and gave him), to get a ruling changed in favor of the host nation's team. During a World Cup the US is hosting.

FIFA says the disciplinary panel decided "independently." Sure. Convenient timing though, right?

I'm asking:

Does this taint anything Team USA accomplishes in this tournament, whether Balogun's phone call had any actual effect or not?

Is this just how the US operates now, home field advantage isn't enough, we need presidential lobbying too?

So apparently the White House called up FIFA president Gianni Infantino personally to "review" Balogun's red card after the Bosnia match. Ban gets suspended days later. Trump takes a victory lap on Truth Social thanking FIFA for "reversing a great injustice."

Am I the only one who finds this insane? This isn't some random ref controversy. This is the sitting President of the United States picking up the phone to lean on the head of an international sports organization he's cozy with (free tickets, a literal "peace prize" Infantino invented and gave him), to get a ruling changed in favor of the host nation's team. During a World Cup the US is hosting.

FIFA says the disciplinary panel decided "independently." Sure. Convenient timing though, right?

I'm asking:

Does this taint anything Team USA accomplishes in this tournament, whether Balogun's phone call had any actual effect or not?

Is this just how the US operates now, home field advantage isn't enough, we need presidential lobbying too?

With Trump's latest financial disclosure reportedly showing enormous crypto-related earnings, I'm curious how people think this plays out.

I'm not asking whether you think he's guilty of anything. I'm asking something more specific:

Do you think there will ever be a serious federal investigation into whether money flowing into Trump's crypto businesses was connected to official presidential actions (for example, pardons, regulatory decisions, or other exercises of presidential power)?

The reason I ask is that many people argue the recent Supreme Court immunity decision makes investigating corruption tied to official presidential acts practically impossible, while others say private financial conduct can still be investigated and prosecuted.

So what's your view?

- Do you expect a genuine criminal investigation at some point?

- Or do you think the legal and political barriers are so high that it simply won't happen, regardless of the evidence?

- If you think an investigation will happen, what would realistically trigger it?

With the war in Iran, the war in Lebanon, and US mercenaries embedded with the Israeli Defense Forces to supportin the genocide in Gaza, are there still any of those "I voted for Trump because of Biden's Israel policies" people around and willing to speak up?

​

Do you feel guilty for all the mass murder committed in your name? Do you feel guilty for the millions of civilians that are displaced because of you?

So Trump signed the Iran MOU at Versailles this week. As a European I had a tiny moment, and I'm genuinely curious whether it hit the same way over there.

​

Quick context for anyone who skipped that lecture: the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles is basically the world's flagship venue for humiliating peace deals. It's where Germany proclaimed its empire in 1871 right after beating France, and where the Allies handed Germany the brutal Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Historically, if you're signing something *there*, you're usually the one getting terms dictated to you.

​

(And yes, Iran actually signed in Tehran, so it doesn't even map. That's sort of the charm of it.)

​

So: when y'all saw "signed at Versailles," did anyone go "...huh," or was it purely "nice chandeliers, good for him"? Not stirring anything up, just wondering whether the backdrop carried any weight stateside or whether it's a very European thing to clock.

​

Macron shaking his hand going "bravo, good job" was a choice, though. I would assume Macron understands the historical context very well. So, did he do this to fuck with Trump? Or did Trump understand it as well and actually thought he would look like the dictating party in the signing and not like the surrendering party?

The idea is to improve the clarity of the name as the department of war mainly seems to be concerned with paying reparations. So the name change would make it easier for the general public to understand what the department of war is doing. Thereby politics would become more accessible for a greater share of the population.

I've recently noticed a significant decrease in activity from Republican commentators across several subreddits. Has anyone else in this community also noticed this trend, or is it just my experience? It seems like even some bots from r/conversative were purged by reddit with more than half the sub gone now.

I'm also looking for recommendations on where I can still find active Republican users to ask questions. I'm preferably looking for communities that are open to discussion and don't require a proven history of "political insanity" just to ask a question. So not e.g. r/conservative.

Any suggestions or insights would be greatly appreciated!

Not trying to be hyperbolic, but the way the Trump-aligned GOP handled Thomas Massie’s primary feels like a turning point worth talking about.

You had a sitting Republican incumbent, arguably one of the most consistently “ideological” conservatives in Congress, who wasn’t known for scandals or incompetence, just for regularly breaking with leadership on spending, foreign policy, and executive power. And instead of tolerating that kind of internal dissent, the full weight of the Trump political operation and outside spending apparatus was reportedly deployed to replace him.

Now assume Massie is actually done in Congress. The obvious short-term takeaway is “party discipline victory.” But the longer-term risk looks more complicated:

What message does this send to other semi-independent Republicans?

Does the GOP effectively become a loyalty-first party rather than a coalition of different conservative philosophies?

And what happens when someone like Massie, who is very clearly not a progressive, decides there is no “home” left inside the party structure?

The uncomfortable scenario (for Republicans) isn’t that Massie becomes a Democrat. It’s that he becomes a symbolic defector, someone who can credibly say: “I didn’t leave conservative principles, the party left them,” and have at least some libertarian/anti-establishment voters take that seriously.

Even if you support Trump, there’s a strategic question here: is it actually smart to eliminate every internal dissenting voice? Or does that just accelerate fragmentation into personality-driven factions rather than a stable governing party?

Because historically, parties that purge internal ideological diversity don’t stay stable, they just become more brittle.

Curious how people here see it:

Was this just normal primary politics with a well-funded challenger?

Or a deliberate message to enforce ideological loyalty across the GOP?

And does it actually strengthen or weaken the party long-term?