3 ms·
That makes no sense whatsoever. Voting for Trump (or anyone with an R by their name) is wrong; sitting out a vote is wrong. Why save all the blame for the side
by WolfeReader 4mo ago
That makes no sense whatsoever. Voting for Trump (or anyone with an R by their name) is wrong; sitting out a vote is wrong. Why save all the blame for the side that actually put up resistance, however ineptly?
- inetknght 4mo ago> Why save all the blame for the side that actually put up resistance Resistance is one definition, I guess. A very loose definition. I'd call it what it was. Career sociopaths decided to put a career sociopath on the ballot instead of someone the left's citizens would actually like.
- dayyan 4mo ago[flagged]
- manphone 4mo agoHe’s sitting at 30% approval while starting wars and not releasing the Epstein files. You are saying pure cope right now.
- Nasrudith 4mo agoI'll let you in on a secret. The main reason why nobody is catering to you isn't because what you want goes against the money, the status quo, or whatever big bad you imagine. It is because if you don't vote then you are about as good for them as nipples on a Breast Plate. There is a reason seniors get everything that they want: it is because they always show up to vote!
- opsnooperfax 4mo agoI don’t think blue team good, red team bad is a very mature take on US politics. When it comes to substantive policy, voters do not get a choice. The same wars will be fought. The same lobbies will have their way. Just because one side will make tactless, self-deifying inaugural speeches about how the sea levels will cease to rise and the Earth will start to heal, that does not make it so. I think that if these sensors were providing useful, actionable information more valuable than their maintenance cost is not well supported.
- tombert 4mo agoYeah, no, it actually is mature enough. I hate divisive language like this, but Trump's only major concrete "policy" (if you can call it that) during his 2024 campaign was that he was going to somehow lower grocery prices by instituting tariffs, so basically "I'm going to lower prices by raising prices". That kind of idiotic quasi-doublespeak should have been a disqualifier for anyone with at least a two-digit IQ, but apparently it's not. The only scenarios that I can see for this: 1) People actually believed the idiotic notion that "other countries" pay the tariffs. This is so idiotic because even if that were true, which it's not, those costs would still be ruled into the price. "No such thing as a free lunch" is very literally the first thing I learned in high school economics. If people are that stupid then they can be blamed for their idiotic decisions to vote for a despot. 2) They didn't believe in the tariff rhetoric, and wanted to vote for Trump based on a nebulous "personality". This is stupid. If you really are voting for people because you think you'd "like to have a beer with them", then you should be blamed when bad things happen from that idiotic decision. ---- Kamala wasn't a great candidate, but I really hate this sort of "both sides"-ing people do to try and engage in apologetics for people's ridiculous decision to vote for the guy who, as far as I can tell, has literally no expertise in anything.
- kxrm 4mo ago> People actually believed the idiotic notion that "other countries" pay the tariffs. Many believed this, think about how many Americans do not understand the Progressive Tax system. I believe it has been intentional for many years to keep up some of these misunderstanding of basic governance.