32 ms·
> The Democratic Party nominated a poor candidate who proceeded to lose the election. Because there are only two viable parties, that means the other party wins
by exe34 1y ago
> The Democratic Party nominated a poor candidate who proceeded to lose the election. Because there are only two viable parties, that means the other party wins, even when the other party nominated Donald Trump.
You had a choice between Trump again and not Trump. You can't keep blaming others for your choices.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago[flagged]
- CamperBob2 1y agovoting for a total unknown who can't even answer basic policy questions is absurd Voting for a mediagenic con man who also can't answer basic policy questions is even more absurd, but never mind that.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoNo, Trump will answer questions and do media interviews, and the specific way in which he lies about things is consistent and predictable. Most of what he's doing are the things he said he was going to do. The problem is he said he was going to do a lot of asinine stuff, like promote coal. Which is bad because it's a bad policy, not because you had no idea he intended to do it. But it still seems like people should be able to agree that being forced to choose between two bad candidates is a problem worth solving.
- exe34 1y ago> You had a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich So you described Trump, but I don't see the problem with Kamala? Isn't "the same" better than "worse"?
- mhb 1y agoKamala is clearly an idiot. So there's that. Who are you trying to convince? It would be great if the Democrats could learn that all it would take to beat the giant douche is to run someone reasonably intelligent and moderate instead of playing the brinksmanship game believing that it's unthinkable that anyone would actually vote for the giant douche.