5 ms·

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the governmen

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.

NewJazz 1y ago
Well, you being collective.
dylan604 1y ago
[flagged]
- garciasn 1y ago
  I think your comment is pedantic; while I appreciate pedantry, it's a bit absurd. It's a democracy; 'we' get what 'we' voted to have.
  - iAMkenough 1y ago
    As an appreciator of pedantry, what do you say to those who claim it's more of an "oligarchy" than a "democracy" in the United States these days?
    - garciasn 1y ago
      'We' voted for what 'we' got. The Democrats did not message well enough to win over the majority of the popular vote nor the electoral vote; full stop. So; if we are indeed an oligarchy and not a democracy, the majority want to live in an oligarchy, find other messaging that the GOP puts out as more important in their individual day-to-day lives, or the messaging that the Democrats put out isn't resonating enough to overpower the GOP's. That said, I don't believe in focusing on class-based politics in this day and age; the Supreme Court has made it clear that money is permissible to influence election outcomes and that can and does drive these sorts of structural shifts in politics to allow for the ultra-wealthy to massively influence political outcomes in our country. TL;DR: I would tell someone that being under an oligarchy may be true (I cannot be certain as I'm not a political scientist), but there are other far more important issues TO THE GENERAL ELECTORATE that resonate better and should be the focus of future candidate messaging in order to win the election.
      - sapphicsnail 1y ago
        People were only given 2 options. The democrats didn't even have a primary. We didn't really get democracy. There are plenty of things that are broadly unpopular that elected officials do and it's a lazy oversimplification to say that that's what the majority want.
        codyb 1y ago
        There was a primary, it just wasn't a hotly contested one. I voted in it... That being said, there was no contest post Biden drop out, although there was a party alignment
        dylan604 1y ago
        The person that ran for office was not the person that won the primary.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    We isn't what was written, so you've modified the original comment just to make your point where my comment was reply directly as written.
    - TheCoelacanth 1y ago
      "You" is often plural.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        and typically differentiated by declaring it the royal you
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        mock-possum 1y ago
        The royal y’all
      - chimeracoder 1y ago
        > "You" is often plural. If we're being pedantic (which we absolutely are at this point), "you" is always plural, and plurality is sometimes used to denote formality or respect for a singular subject (analogous to vous in French, or Sie in Germanic languages). It just so happens that we exclusively use the formal/respectful version in English these days. The only truly singular singular second person pronoun in English is thou, which was the familiar form (although now because it is so archaic people ironically interpret it as more formal).
        TheCoelacanth 1y ago
        If we're being pedantic, then "you" used to always be plural. In present day English, it is both singular and plural.
  - harimau777 1y ago
    America hasn't been a democracy for a long time if ever. Between voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and Citizens United the government no longer meaningfully reflects the will of the people.
    - alistairSH 1y ago
      Also pedantic. Yeah, we're a republic not a textbook democracy. And we continue to elect representatives who further erode the power of the people via the means you mention. "We" could have elected Harris (or somebody else) and avoided the current mess, but "we" chose chaos and regression instead.
  - dstroot 1y ago
    Unfortunately money seems to be able to buy votes. So it’s more like “they got what they paid for”.
nrclark 1y ago
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- delecti 1y ago
  It's more like a 9 sheep and a wolf with a great PR firm who convinced 5 sheep to vote against the other 4 for lunch plans. Those 5 sheep aren't going to come out of this any better than the 4 of us.
- manishsharan 1y ago
  This is a lazy argument. It only serves to dissuade the masses from doing critical thinking and analyzing party platforms. It also explains why blue collar Americans vote for tax breaks for billionaires and union busting legislation.
  - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
    One party doesn't actually have a platform and they've abandoned all the principles in their past platforms. Now it's just agree to whatever one deranged person cooks up in his head after watching TV.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  I'm getting tired of this whataboutism. We did not have an almost daily turmoil of shit happening in 2021-2024.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    One of the biggest accolades Biden got for a lot of people was they got 4 years of being able to turn off the news and nothing was on fire. His critics might have called him sleepy Joe (despite his administration being quite prolific) but it terms of normalcy and the government not constantly meddling in your life and business he did a bang up job.
reissbaker 1y ago
On this issue there is no difference between the previous admin and the current one. The FTC voted 3-0 to postpone. Even though Trump fired two of the original five, if those two had both voted against postponing they would have still lost 3-2 and the same decision would be reached — and I don't think there's much evidence that the two he fired would've voted against postponing, anyway.
- coldpie 1y ago
  This is incorrect. The party makeup of the 5 people changed with the new administration. Lina Khan (D) left and Mark Meador (R) was appointed, changing the balance from 3(D)-2(R) to 2(D)-3(R).
  - reissbaker 1y ago
    Ah, I hadn't realized that. Still, given that it was 3-0, all three of the former FTC commissioners would have had to be unanimous against deferral — and given that all of them voted for deferral on Jan 19th [1] (the original deadline, when none had been fired and Lina Khan was still onboard) — I don't think there's much change here. 1: https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/10/ftc-delays-enforcement-of-click-to-cancel-rule/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/10/ftc-delays-enforcement-of-...
gosub100 1y ago
I'm happy to see the waste reigned in and corruption exposed.

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.

NewJazz 1y ago

Well, you being collective.

dylan604 1y ago

[flagged]

garciasn 1y ago
I think your comment is pedantic; while I appreciate pedantry, it's a bit absurd. It's a democracy; 'we' get what 'we' voted to have.
- iAMkenough 1y ago
  As an appreciator of pedantry, what do you say to those who claim it's more of an "oligarchy" than a "democracy" in the United States these days?
  - garciasn 1y ago
    'We' voted for what 'we' got. The Democrats did not message well enough to win over the majority of the popular vote nor the electoral vote; full stop. So; if we are indeed an oligarchy and not a democracy, the majority want to live in an oligarchy, find other messaging that the GOP puts out as more important in their individual day-to-day lives, or the messaging that the Democrats put out isn't resonating enough to overpower the GOP's. That said, I don't believe in focusing on class-based politics in this day and age; the Supreme Court has made it clear that money is permissible to influence election outcomes and that can and does drive these sorts of structural shifts in politics to allow for the ultra-wealthy to massively influence political outcomes in our country. TL;DR: I would tell someone that being under an oligarchy may be true (I cannot be certain as I'm not a political scientist), but there are other far more important issues TO THE GENERAL ELECTORATE that resonate better and should be the focus of future candidate messaging in order to win the election.
    - sapphicsnail 1y ago
      People were only given 2 options. The democrats didn't even have a primary. We didn't really get democracy. There are plenty of things that are broadly unpopular that elected officials do and it's a lazy oversimplification to say that that's what the majority want.
      - codyb 1y ago
        There was a primary, it just wasn't a hotly contested one. I voted in it... That being said, there was no contest post Biden drop out, although there was a party alignment
        dylan604 1y ago
        The person that ran for office was not the person that won the primary.
- dylan604 1y ago
  We isn't what was written, so you've modified the original comment just to make your point where my comment was reply directly as written.
  - TheCoelacanth 1y ago
    "You" is often plural.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      and typically differentiated by declaring it the royal you
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - mock-possum 1y ago
        The royal y’all
    - chimeracoder 1y ago
      > "You" is often plural. If we're being pedantic (which we absolutely are at this point), "you" is always plural, and plurality is sometimes used to denote formality or respect for a singular subject (analogous to vous in French, or Sie in Germanic languages). It just so happens that we exclusively use the formal/respectful version in English these days. The only truly singular singular second person pronoun in English is thou, which was the familiar form (although now because it is so archaic people ironically interpret it as more formal).
      - TheCoelacanth 1y ago
        If we're being pedantic, then "you" used to always be plural. In present day English, it is both singular and plural.
- harimau777 1y ago
  America hasn't been a democracy for a long time if ever. Between voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and Citizens United the government no longer meaningfully reflects the will of the people.
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    Also pedantic. Yeah, we're a republic not a textbook democracy. And we continue to elect representatives who further erode the power of the people via the means you mention. "We" could have elected Harris (or somebody else) and avoided the current mess, but "we" chose chaos and regression instead.
- dstroot 1y ago
  Unfortunately money seems to be able to buy votes. So it’s more like “they got what they paid for”.

nrclark 1y ago

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
delecti 1y ago
It's more like a 9 sheep and a wolf with a great PR firm who convinced 5 sheep to vote against the other 4 for lunch plans. Those 5 sheep aren't going to come out of this any better than the 4 of us.
manishsharan 1y ago
This is a lazy argument. It only serves to dissuade the masses from doing critical thinking and analyzing party platforms. It also explains why blue collar Americans vote for tax breaks for billionaires and union busting legislation.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  One party doesn't actually have a platform and they've abandoned all the principles in their past platforms. Now it's just agree to whatever one deranged person cooks up in his head after watching TV.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
I'm getting tired of this whataboutism. We did not have an almost daily turmoil of shit happening in 2021-2024.
- Spivak 1y ago
  One of the biggest accolades Biden got for a lot of people was they got 4 years of being able to turn off the news and nothing was on fire. His critics might have called him sleepy Joe (despite his administration being quite prolific) but it terms of normalcy and the government not constantly meddling in your life and business he did a bang up job.

reissbaker 1y ago

On this issue there is no difference between the previous admin and the current one. The FTC voted 3-0 to postpone. Even though Trump fired two of the original five, if those two had both voted against postponing they would have still lost 3-2 and the same decision would be reached — and I don't think there's much evidence that the two he fired would've voted against postponing, anyway.

coldpie 1y ago
This is incorrect. The party makeup of the 5 people changed with the new administration. Lina Khan (D) left and Mark Meador (R) was appointed, changing the balance from 3(D)-2(R) to 2(D)-3(R).
- reissbaker 1y ago
  Ah, I hadn't realized that. Still, given that it was 3-0, all three of the former FTC commissioners would have had to be unanimous against deferral — and given that all of them voted for deferral on Jan 19th [1] (the original deadline, when none had been fired and Lina Khan was still onboard) — I don't think there's much change here. 1: https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/10/ftc-delays-enforcement-of-click-to-cancel-rule/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/10/ftc-delays-enforcement-of-...

gosub100 1y ago

I'm happy to see the waste reigned in and corruption exposed.