6 ms·

> Have i felt better over the past 4 years I agree with you that for a lot of people this is what it came down to, which is so sad. Short-term thinking will le

by tines 2y ago

> Have i felt better over the past 4 years I agree with you that for a lot of people this is what it came down to, which is so sad. Short-term thinking will lead us to destruction. Instead of asking whether things have improved over the last four years, think about what you want the country and the world to look like in ten, fifty, or a hundred years. And what other countries looked like ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand years ago. Think about the rises and falls of other nations. Think about the fact that it's getting measurably hotter every year, and that one party doesn't even acknowledge that fact. Everything is more expensive, and yes, that sucks. But we've handed over the kingdom's keys to an authoritarian idiot who will dismantle the systems that took hundreds of years to establish. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it sure burned fast. > Harris being a silent VP for 4 full years and thrown to lime light. Funny that people constantly talk about how they're not voting for Trump, they're voting for the policies of the party etc. but then they can't apply the same rationale to the other side.

eric-hu 2y ago
> Funny that people constantly talk about how they're not voting for Trump, they're voting for the policies of the party etc. but then they can't apply the same rationale to the other side. Different people, different sides. I guess the Republican Party did something very well here compared to Democrats, though I don’t know what or how.
frmersdog 2y ago
>think about what you want the country and the world to look like in ten, fifty, or a hundred years. This is the candidate's job. She didn't center a coherent vision of the improved future only she could get the country to. Pick one thing that Trump wouldn't or couldn't run on, that wasn't just "getting back thing we lost (under our watch)." Green New Deal. Medicare For All. Defund the police. Build houses for everyone. Monorail. Anything for people to hang a hope on. But any big idea would piss off donor-investors who would be hurt by any change to the status quo. So she offered nothing.
- tines 2y ago
  > She didn't center a coherent vision of the improved future only she could get the country to. So the default is to vote for a person who will run the world into the ground? I don't understand why the onus on the sane person to prove why they're going to make things better. I guess people think that any change is good change? Yet people voted Hitler into power. My take is that America was founded during a time of very high "mental activity" and engagement. In the 1700s people read for fun, the printing press just having been invented the prior century; and listened to candidates debate for hours, at a level of complexity that is beyond people today. A democracy takes that kind of mental energy and engagement to sustain. The citizens of the US seem to be too complacent, too uncaring, to uneducated to preserve their freedom, and so they won't keep it. Sad to see.
  - frmersdog 2y ago
    >So the default is to vote for a person who will run the world into the ground? The default is not to vote.
    - tines 2y ago
      Same thing.
      - frmersdog 2y ago
        It is not, and we are going to continue facing frustration and defeat until people like you learn to accept and understand this. Putting it simply: no candidate is owed a vote. Declining to cast a ballot doesn't favor any candidate. It is true neutral.
        tines 2y ago
        It's really not neutral though in the outcome. It's as if a lever were going to be pulled to kill a bunch of people (for example) unless you pull on it the other way; and then you claim no responsibility for not pulling on the lever because merely "stopping the killing" wasn't a _positive enough_ outcome. When people are going to do bad things, and you can make things a lot less bad for a little effort, you have a responsibility to do that. Like, wouldn't you say that the people who didn't vote during Hitler's election should have voted for his opponent, no matter how unexciting their policies were? (Obviously Trump isn't like Hitler, but same principle to a smaller degree.)

by tines 2y ago

eric-hu 2y ago

> Funny that people constantly talk about how they're not voting for Trump, they're voting for the policies of the party etc. but then they can't apply the same rationale to the other side. Different people, different sides. I guess the Republican Party did something very well here compared to Democrats, though I don’t know what or how.

frmersdog 2y ago

>think about what you want the country and the world to look like in ten, fifty, or a hundred years. This is the candidate's job. She didn't center a coherent vision of the improved future only she could get the country to. Pick one thing that Trump wouldn't or couldn't run on, that wasn't just "getting back thing we lost (under our watch)." Green New Deal. Medicare For All. Defund the police. Build houses for everyone. Monorail. Anything for people to hang a hope on. But any big idea would piss off donor-investors who would be hurt by any change to the status quo. So she offered nothing.

tines 2y ago
> She didn't center a coherent vision of the improved future only she could get the country to. So the default is to vote for a person who will run the world into the ground? I don't understand why the onus on the sane person to prove why they're going to make things better. I guess people think that any change is good change? Yet people voted Hitler into power. My take is that America was founded during a time of very high "mental activity" and engagement. In the 1700s people read for fun, the printing press just having been invented the prior century; and listened to candidates debate for hours, at a level of complexity that is beyond people today. A democracy takes that kind of mental energy and engagement to sustain. The citizens of the US seem to be too complacent, too uncaring, to uneducated to preserve their freedom, and so they won't keep it. Sad to see.
- frmersdog 2y ago
  >So the default is to vote for a person who will run the world into the ground? The default is not to vote.
  - tines 2y ago
    Same thing.
    - frmersdog 2y ago
      It is not, and we are going to continue facing frustration and defeat until people like you learn to accept and understand this. Putting it simply: no candidate is owed a vote. Declining to cast a ballot doesn't favor any candidate. It is true neutral.
      - tines 2y ago
        It's really not neutral though in the outcome. It's as if a lever were going to be pulled to kill a bunch of people (for example) unless you pull on it the other way; and then you claim no responsibility for not pulling on the lever because merely "stopping the killing" wasn't a _positive enough_ outcome. When people are going to do bad things, and you can make things a lot less bad for a little effort, you have a responsibility to do that. Like, wouldn't you say that the people who didn't vote during Hitler's election should have voted for his opponent, no matter how unexciting their policies were? (Obviously Trump isn't like Hitler, but same principle to a smaller degree.)