5 ms·

What about the people who just voted against a party infrastructure that 1) insisted that a vegetable was sharp as a tack, 2) that you can't have a primary no m

What about the people who just voted against a party infrastructure that 1) insisted that a vegetable was sharp as a tack, 2) that you can't have a primary no matter how much you want it, 3) that the guy who won in 2016 is definitely working for Russia, and 4) is probably just as involved in the Epstein situation as the red team? You chose your lesser of 2 evils, and others chose theirs. There is no acceptable choice in American presidential politics.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
I mean, exactly. If they live in a reality where Jan 6 is less evil than an incumbent president getting the automatic nomination, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation. If, in their minds, Harris and Trump are somehow equally implicated in the Epstein scandal, all I can say is "lol, have a good one".
- ifyoubuildit 1y ago
  How does it change your calculation if you realize the lack of a primary is probably why you have the evil villain behind January 6th in office? I'm not talking about Harris specifically re Epstein, no idea what her involvement is. I'm saying the blue team in general. And is it really a good defense to say "my team was less involved with Epstein"? I'd humbly submit that it's not.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    They're not my team. I am an independent who votes for people, not parties. And yes, while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do so. This is why we live in different realities.
    - ifyoubuildit 1y ago
      > while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, (why doesn't this sentence end here?) distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do so. Different realities indeed. The dems didn't even do that first part of promising to release things before "failing" to. Nobody in charge wants this stuff out. This is why our system is fucked. You just have to convince people you're not as bad as the other guy, and you get carte blanch to do pretty much whatever.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        > why doesn't the sentence end here? Once again, because being in a political party that has rapists is not the same as committing rape. Do I need to explain this further? > The dems didn't even do that first part of promising to release things before "failing" to. So then don't vote for them? Though if you are voting based on this issue and have a choice between a man who is in the files and has a documented history with Epstein or a woman who is a former state AG and didn't run in the east coast Trump/Epstein circles, please tell me you aren't as naive as Joe Rogan.
habinero 1y ago
You're trying to "both sides" here, but the problem is your talking points are fabricated and were never real. They're propaganda. 1. Biden was old and everyone knew it. He still got shit done. The idea that everyone thought he was great and fine is not true. That's what Republicans claimed people thought. 2. Primaries are not an official part of the election process. They are a party matter. The whole weird Republican meltdown over it is not based in fact or history. 3. Russia did interfere with the 2016 elections. There's a whole congressional report on it, by a majority Republican committee. [0] 4. I don't even know what this means. If someone did crimes, they should be held responsible. The idea that we don't want that is, frankly propaganda. [0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-documents-report-volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/...
- worik 1y ago
  My point is that all you USA people should work against division. You need to build bridges with people that you disagree with Casting somebody out of "the big tent" because of how they voted works towards increasing division. Increasing division, especially between majorities and minorities, is a time worn and effective tactic to create the conditions for authoritarianism. If you favour authoritarianism over liberty then I am not talking to you. If you favour liberty, support it, do not work against it
- ifyoubuildit 1y ago
  1. I don't believe that he was steering the ship, which is kind of important. Maybe you're fine with his team making all the decisions. That's a betrayal of trust for me. 2. I'm not a Republican and I like the idea of the people getting to have a say in their leadership. 3. The claim I mentioned was that Trump was a Russian agent. Where's the evidence for that one? 4. This means the blue team had plenty of time to do something about the Epstein files and didn't. We'll never know what kamala would have done about it, but my money is on jack and squat. Again, I'm not a republican. The red team sucks, and still the blue team wasn't good enough to beat them.
  - habinero 1y ago
8note 1y ago
in what world is kamala harris as involved with epstein as epsteins best friend trump? she probably would have actually released the epstein files with only the victims names redacted. trump, as well, one of epsteins best friends in the whole world, who may have also had him assasinated, aint gonna be the guy to release all those files about himself. democrats have proved time and time again that they will turn on each other in an instant to prove morality while republicans all drop their morals the moment it affects their hierarchical power. wed still have some great democrat senators from the metoo era if that werent the case. ----- i think people pick by name recognition rather than by lesser evil. if folks think trump is less evil than harris, theyre probably far beyond any conversation i could have. as south park puts it, not even satan wants to have sex with him.

cosmicgadget 1y ago

I mean, exactly. If they live in a reality where Jan 6 is less evil than an incumbent president getting the automatic nomination, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation. If, in their minds, Harris and Trump are somehow equally implicated in the Epstein scandal, all I can say is "lol, have a good one".

ifyoubuildit 1y ago
How does it change your calculation if you realize the lack of a primary is probably why you have the evil villain behind January 6th in office? I'm not talking about Harris specifically re Epstein, no idea what her involvement is. I'm saying the blue team in general. And is it really a good defense to say "my team was less involved with Epstein"? I'd humbly submit that it's not.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  They're not my team. I am an independent who votes for people, not parties. And yes, while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do so. This is why we live in different realities.
  - ifyoubuildit 1y ago
    > while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, (why doesn't this sentence end here?) distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do so. Different realities indeed. The dems didn't even do that first part of promising to release things before "failing" to. Nobody in charge wants this stuff out. This is why our system is fucked. You just have to convince people you're not as bad as the other guy, and you get carte blanch to do pretty much whatever.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      > why doesn't the sentence end here? Once again, because being in a political party that has rapists is not the same as committing rape. Do I need to explain this further? > The dems didn't even do that first part of promising to release things before "failing" to. So then don't vote for them? Though if you are voting based on this issue and have a choice between a man who is in the files and has a documented history with Epstein or a woman who is a former state AG and didn't run in the east coast Trump/Epstein circles, please tell me you aren't as naive as Joe Rogan.

habinero 1y ago

You're trying to "both sides" here, but the problem is your talking points are fabricated and were never real. They're propaganda. 1. Biden was old and everyone knew it. He still got shit done. The idea that everyone thought he was great and fine is not true. That's what Republicans claimed people thought. 2. Primaries are not an official part of the election process. They are a party matter. The whole weird Republican meltdown over it is not based in fact or history. 3. Russia did interfere with the 2016 elections. There's a whole congressional report on it, by a majority Republican committee. [0] 4. I don't even know what this means. If someone did crimes, they should be held responsible. The idea that we don't want that is, frankly propaganda. [0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-documents-report-volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/...

worik 1y ago
My point is that all you USA people should work against division. You need to build bridges with people that you disagree with Casting somebody out of "the big tent" because of how they voted works towards increasing division. Increasing division, especially between majorities and minorities, is a time worn and effective tactic to create the conditions for authoritarianism. If you favour authoritarianism over liberty then I am not talking to you. If you favour liberty, support it, do not work against it
ifyoubuildit 1y ago
1. I don't believe that he was steering the ship, which is kind of important. Maybe you're fine with his team making all the decisions. That's a betrayal of trust for me. 2. I'm not a Republican and I like the idea of the people getting to have a say in their leadership. 3. The claim I mentioned was that Trump was a Russian agent. Where's the evidence for that one? 4. This means the blue team had plenty of time to do something about the Epstein files and didn't. We'll never know what kamala would have done about it, but my money is on jack and squat. Again, I'm not a republican. The red team sucks, and still the blue team wasn't good enough to beat them.
- habinero 1y ago

8note 1y ago

in what world is kamala harris as involved with epstein as epsteins best friend trump? she probably would have actually released the epstein files with only the victims names redacted. trump, as well, one of epsteins best friends in the whole world, who may have also had him assasinated, aint gonna be the guy to release all those files about himself. democrats have proved time and time again that they will turn on each other in an instant to prove morality while republicans all drop their morals the moment it affects their hierarchical power. wed still have some great democrat senators from the metoo era if that werent the case. ----- i think people pick by name recognition rather than by lesser evil. if folks think trump is less evil than harris, theyre probably far beyond any conversation i could have. as south park puts it, not even satan wants to have sex with him.