4 ms·

Controversial opinion, it's way more than half: 1/3 voted for the orange man, 1/3 didn't bother go to vote because "BoTh SideS ARe thE SamE!" and 1/3 tried to d

Controversial opinion, it's way more than half: 1/3 voted for the orange man, 1/3 didn't bother go to vote because "BoTh SideS ARe thE SamE!" and 1/3 tried to do the right thing.

JohnMakin 7mo ago
It may surprise you, but it’s generally accepted that 1/3rd is less than 1/2.
- TwoNineA 7mo ago
  1/3 explicitly approve and 1/3 implicity approve. If my math is mathing, that's 2/3 and it's larger than 1/2.
  - dahart 7mo ago
    It’s a large and incorrect assumption, and not mathing, to lump non-voters into supporters, especially when the administration is purging eligible voters.
    - Larrikin 7mo ago
      Eligible voters should absolutely be lumped in as implicit supporters. Disenfranchised voters have been made ineligible so should not have been in the statistic.
      - abletonlive 7mo ago
        [flagged]
    - hamdingers 7mo ago
      An eligible voter who chooses not to vote makes one unambiguous statement: "I'm fine with either outcome"
      - dahart 7mo ago
        That’s an assumption, jumping to a conclusion. It is true for some people, since some people say it out loud, but it is not true for everybody, and calling it “unambiguous” is an unsupportable claim. To the degree some non-voters say they don’t care, that’s still deeply complicated, enough that even taking someone’s word for it is a bad idea. Non-voters in the U.S. are not uniformly distributed, and thus there is evidence suggesting that not caring is already a function of class, race, education, gender, and age, among other things. If you actually care about voting and about the truth, it does yourself a disservice to jump to a assumed conclusion that all non-voters are saying something unambiguous, that they’re all saying the same thing, that they all have informed choice, that they understand all the tradeoffs and implications, and that they really are fine with any outcome regardless of what they say.
  - yCombLinks 7mo ago
    I'm in one of the many states where my vote doesn't matter. Deep red. Doesn't make me a supporter
  - JohnMakin 7mo ago
    This is extremely lazy and unrigorous reasoning that could be extended dishonestly to any number of things. Oh, you aren't protesting genocides? You must support them then. Oh, you're not helping feed hungry people in poor countries? Guess you support child starvation. Oh, you're not contributing to the Rust ecosystem? ...............
    - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
      None of those are comparable to the simple and quick act of voting against a treasonous candidate for US president. This wasn’t a bad candidate vs worse candidate situation, it was someone who supports breaking apart the trust and foundation of the country solely for personal gain versus someone who at least believed in providing a veneer of civility.
      - JohnMakin 7mo ago
        signing an online petition is also a quick act, and the same reasoning you’re using would follow. you’re almost getting at what’s wrong with your specific voter argument though - in many, many states, 1 or more of the following can apply: big states that always vote one way like CA where a non vote is the same as a blue vote states where voting is such a tedious process that opting out is a reasonable choice, even if it doesnt place a big burden otherwise states with voter id laws, often large chunks of the eligible population do not have an id disabled people, people with hardship, etc., felons It’s really weird logic to lump massive chunks of the general population these things apply to in with the same people that explicitly support this. It also ignores the fact that these elections often come down to a few thousand or fewer votes in a handful of battleground states. Not voting in those places, I would tend to agree more with the gist of your point, but it is no where near a big chunk of the population.
  - fwip 7mo ago
    Rhetorically: why is it "implicitly approve" instead of "implicitly disapprove?" The only thing you know about them is that they did not vote. Even using your assumption of their beliefs ("both sides are the same"), that position is generally affiliated with disapproval, not approval.
- iso1631 7mo ago
  It's "generally accepted", at least in America, that 1/4 is bigger than 1/3 https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/third-pound-burger-fractions/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/third-pound-burger-fr...
hypeatei 7mo ago
I upvoted you because I think the current culture is too "blameless" with regards to voters themselves. "But the party just ran a bad candidate!" "Egg prices were too high!!" "Kamala would've been just as bad for Gaza as Trump!" No, sorry, voters don't get a pass because they're apathetic or love being the "enlightened centrist" that lets fascism takeover.
- masklinn 7mo ago
  Don't forget the evergreen "it's just politics it doesn't have to affect our relationship".
  - hypeatei 7mo ago
    Oh yes, that's a classic line. They pretend as if we're just debating what the tax rate should be or some other benign talking point.
tehjoker 7mo ago
The democrats are complicit in genocide. Trump is attacking allies too, but they’re both criminal. The main difference is “worthy and unworthy” victims.
- summerdown2 7mo ago
  > Trump is attacking allies too, but they’re both criminal. In other news, a mouse and an elephant are both mammals. If only there was some obvious way to tell the difference between them.
  - tehjoker 7mo ago
    I don't really know how to respond politely to downplaying genocide. What I can say is that it is becoming accepted that Kamala Harris lost in part because she refused to change genocide policy. If you want to win, you should start taking it seriously. My swing-state vote was stupendously easy to get. (a) don't commit a genocide (b) give voters something big and material like free healthcare (c) don't cover up COVID and Long COVID They didn't even try. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...
    - FireBeyond 7mo ago
      > My swing-state vote was stupendously easy to get. (a) don't commit a genocide (b) give voters something big and material like free healthcare (c) don't cover up COVID and Long COVID So they voted for the side committing genocide and who sees free healthcare as an atrocity in itself to everything the US stands for? What did the Dems do to "cover up" COVID? You know versus "It's nothing worse than the flu, it'll be over in two weeks" while privately being aware that neither of those things were true? I mean, they didn't do that (and I think the DNC, DWS and their ilk have a lot to answer for the current state of affairs), but your "swing state, stupendously easy to get" decided instead to vote for the side that openly doubled down on those things, not really a ringing endorsement for expectations of voters there. That's before we even get to the general issue of an electoral populace so ignorant of the political landscape that the number one search on Election Day on Google was "Did Biden drop out?"
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
Because of the electoral college, it doesn’t matter if more people voted in California, NY, Alabama, Mississippi, etc
mvdtnz 7mo ago
If someone looks at (admittedly shitty) candidates like Harris and decides she's as bad as Trump it means the implicitly approve of Trump. You need a mushy brain to not see that there's shit (Harris) that there's Trump, orders or magnitude worse.

Controversial opinion, it's way more than half: 1/3 voted for the orange man, 1/3 didn't bother go to vote because "BoTh SideS ARe thE SamE!" and 1/3 tried to do the right thing.

JohnMakin 7mo ago

It may surprise you, but it’s generally accepted that 1/3rd is less than 1/2.

TwoNineA 7mo ago
1/3 explicitly approve and 1/3 implicity approve. If my math is mathing, that's 2/3 and it's larger than 1/2.
- dahart 7mo ago
  It’s a large and incorrect assumption, and not mathing, to lump non-voters into supporters, especially when the administration is purging eligible voters.
  - Larrikin 7mo ago
    Eligible voters should absolutely be lumped in as implicit supporters. Disenfranchised voters have been made ineligible so should not have been in the statistic.
    - abletonlive 7mo ago
      [flagged]
  - hamdingers 7mo ago
    An eligible voter who chooses not to vote makes one unambiguous statement: "I'm fine with either outcome"
    - dahart 7mo ago
      That’s an assumption, jumping to a conclusion. It is true for some people, since some people say it out loud, but it is not true for everybody, and calling it “unambiguous” is an unsupportable claim. To the degree some non-voters say they don’t care, that’s still deeply complicated, enough that even taking someone’s word for it is a bad idea. Non-voters in the U.S. are not uniformly distributed, and thus there is evidence suggesting that not caring is already a function of class, race, education, gender, and age, among other things. If you actually care about voting and about the truth, it does yourself a disservice to jump to a assumed conclusion that all non-voters are saying something unambiguous, that they’re all saying the same thing, that they all have informed choice, that they understand all the tradeoffs and implications, and that they really are fine with any outcome regardless of what they say.
- yCombLinks 7mo ago
  I'm in one of the many states where my vote doesn't matter. Deep red. Doesn't make me a supporter
- JohnMakin 7mo ago
  This is extremely lazy and unrigorous reasoning that could be extended dishonestly to any number of things. Oh, you aren't protesting genocides? You must support them then. Oh, you're not helping feed hungry people in poor countries? Guess you support child starvation. Oh, you're not contributing to the Rust ecosystem? ...............
  - lotsofpulp 7mo ago
    None of those are comparable to the simple and quick act of voting against a treasonous candidate for US president. This wasn’t a bad candidate vs worse candidate situation, it was someone who supports breaking apart the trust and foundation of the country solely for personal gain versus someone who at least believed in providing a veneer of civility.
    - JohnMakin 7mo ago
      signing an online petition is also a quick act, and the same reasoning you’re using would follow. you’re almost getting at what’s wrong with your specific voter argument though - in many, many states, 1 or more of the following can apply: big states that always vote one way like CA where a non vote is the same as a blue vote states where voting is such a tedious process that opting out is a reasonable choice, even if it doesnt place a big burden otherwise states with voter id laws, often large chunks of the eligible population do not have an id disabled people, people with hardship, etc., felons It’s really weird logic to lump massive chunks of the general population these things apply to in with the same people that explicitly support this. It also ignores the fact that these elections often come down to a few thousand or fewer votes in a handful of battleground states. Not voting in those places, I would tend to agree more with the gist of your point, but it is no where near a big chunk of the population.
- fwip 7mo ago
  Rhetorically: why is it "implicitly approve" instead of "implicitly disapprove?" The only thing you know about them is that they did not vote. Even using your assumption of their beliefs ("both sides are the same"), that position is generally affiliated with disapproval, not approval.
iso1631 7mo ago
It's "generally accepted", at least in America, that 1/4 is bigger than 1/3 https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/third-pound-burger-fractions/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/third-pound-burger-fr...

hypeatei 7mo ago

I upvoted you because I think the current culture is too "blameless" with regards to voters themselves. "But the party just ran a bad candidate!" "Egg prices were too high!!" "Kamala would've been just as bad for Gaza as Trump!" No, sorry, voters don't get a pass because they're apathetic or love being the "enlightened centrist" that lets fascism takeover.

masklinn 7mo ago
Don't forget the evergreen "it's just politics it doesn't have to affect our relationship".
- hypeatei 7mo ago
  Oh yes, that's a classic line. They pretend as if we're just debating what the tax rate should be or some other benign talking point.

tehjoker 7mo ago

The democrats are complicit in genocide. Trump is attacking allies too, but they’re both criminal. The main difference is “worthy and unworthy” victims.

summerdown2 7mo ago
> Trump is attacking allies too, but they’re both criminal. In other news, a mouse and an elephant are both mammals. If only there was some obvious way to tell the difference between them.
- tehjoker 7mo ago
  I don't really know how to respond politely to downplaying genocide. What I can say is that it is becoming accepted that Kamala Harris lost in part because she refused to change genocide policy. If you want to win, you should start taking it seriously. My swing-state vote was stupendously easy to get. (a) don't commit a genocide (b) give voters something big and material like free healthcare (c) don't cover up COVID and Long COVID They didn't even try. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...
  - FireBeyond 7mo ago
    > My swing-state vote was stupendously easy to get. (a) don't commit a genocide (b) give voters something big and material like free healthcare (c) don't cover up COVID and Long COVID So they voted for the side committing genocide and who sees free healthcare as an atrocity in itself to everything the US stands for? What did the Dems do to "cover up" COVID? You know versus "It's nothing worse than the flu, it'll be over in two weeks" while privately being aware that neither of those things were true? I mean, they didn't do that (and I think the DNC, DWS and their ilk have a lot to answer for the current state of affairs), but your "swing state, stupendously easy to get" decided instead to vote for the side that openly doubled down on those things, not really a ringing endorsement for expectations of voters there. That's before we even get to the general issue of an electoral populace so ignorant of the political landscape that the number one search on Election Day on Google was "Did Biden drop out?"

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

raw_anon_1111 7mo ago

Because of the electoral college, it doesn’t matter if more people voted in California, NY, Alabama, Mississippi, etc

mvdtnz 7mo ago

If someone looks at (admittedly shitty) candidates like Harris and decides she's as bad as Trump it means the implicitly approve of Trump. You need a mushy brain to not see that there's shit (Harris) that there's Trump, orders or magnitude worse.