5 ms·
> There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt Are you KIDDING? You’re talking about overstating, following with a huge understat
by thiht 2y ago
> There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt
Are you KIDDING? You’re talking about overstating, following with a huge understatement.
Trump sells fucking bibles to schools. Trump launched a shitcoin right before his inauguration. Trump took 1 million dollars per CEO for his inauguration. The corruption scales are off the charts with Trump. You can’t talk about "the lesser of 2 evils" when one of them is a literal wannabe dictator / mafia boss / cult leader. Come on.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoPopular vote disagrees with this.
- DangitBobby 2y agoPopular vote disagrees with the temperature at which water boils.
- thiht 2y agoNo it doesn’t. Popular vote just thinks these are good qualities for their president. One of the failures of democracy is letting people vote themselves into an autocracy, and forgetting that democracy must not become the tyranny of a majority.
- anabab 2y agoAnd apparently this is what Electoral College was supposed to prevent.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoNo, that's not true at all. The EC was to prevent the interests of more populous states from governing the less populous states.
- Izkata 2y agoThat's what "tyranny of the majority" is, you're agreeing with them.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoNo. The EC was meant specifically to mitigate the tyranny of big states over small states, not to thwart a broad coalition of people across the states.
- lapcat 2y agoYou didn't actually dispute my claim. I notice that you offered no defense whatsoever of Democrats, or other Republicans for that matter. I wasn't trying to argue about who exactly is the lesser of evils. As I said, the voters might be wrong about who that is. My point was merely that not everyone who voted for Trump, or voted for Harris (or Biden or Clinton), was enthusiastic about their choice. Not everyone was trying to "own the other side". In fact, many people vote primarily based on their beliefs about their personal economic prospects. As a famous 1992 campaign slogan said, it's "the economy, stupid".
- JeremyNT 2y agoIt's ridiculous whataboutism to "both sides" here. The president ran on a platform of brazen corruption and retribution against political foes, and he's following through. Democrats doing insider trading and other low stakes small ball shit really should not be mentioned in the same conversation.
- mandmandam 2y ago> Democrats doing insider trading and other low stakes small ball shit Er, plus supporting genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and repression of peaceful protest of the same with our tax dollars. Not what I would call "low stakes small ball shit", and not something I will ever overlook or forget. Democrats had four years to find a strong candidate to beat Trump, or to find a way to hold him accountable. It didn't seem to me like they even tried very hard to do that. Even after all their 'mistakes', if that's what they were, they could still have handily won the election simply by promising to enforce an arms embargo. They had lots of polling showing this fact very clearly. Over 30% of 2020 Biden voters in battleground states said the lack of an arms embargo would probably affect their vote! You - and every 2024 Dem voter - might ask yourselves why Democrats would rather hand the Presidency to Trump than stop supplying the bombs killing Palestinians.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoNot sure I understand here. Are you suggesting that the new president will cut off arms to Israel? That makes absolutely no sense.