3 ms·

If you still trust anyone just because they claim to be a Democrat, you haven't been paying enough attention.

RankingMember 15d ago
The people that treat political parties like sports teams are awful and a big part of why we're where we are today, but with the current state of affairs and the choice being between essentially fascism (Republicans) and 1990s conservatism (Democrats), it's not a hard choice. I couldn't agree more with what I think you're implying though, which is that this is a shit state of affairs where we're constantly voting for the lesser of two evils. We need ranked choice and open primaries, imo.
idontwantthis 15d ago
That's not my claim. Republicans just took a vocal public oath of loyalty to their President in which they promised to cheat in the the election. That happened. It's on video. My claim is that you should vote for the other party. That sounds reasonable to me. I voted in the primary against the incumbent. The incumbent won. I will vote for them because the Republican opponent is a documented sexual predator. That is literally true. These are the "two sides" we are dealing with.
- atmavatar 15d ago
  It's even worse: Trump literally just promised during his midterm convention to pay everyone $5,000 should the Republicans win the midterms. Note that this promise is itself illegal. It is a violation of 18 USC 597. See: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=title%3A18+section%3A597+edition%3Aprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=title%3A18+section%3...
  - AnthonyMouse 14d ago
    That interpretation seems... odd. You seem to be implying that if your policy is to give everyone a tax credit (i.e. give them money) if you win then you're not allowed to tell anyone about it.
    - atmavatar 14d ago
      No. He literally says he'll cut a check for $5,000 for every adult american if the Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms. You don't have to take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NphZBfmnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NphZBfmnE He's also stated that he can issue the money without help from Congress, which directly contradicts the idea that it's harmless bloviating about voting in a 120th Congress to implement specific policy: See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLXAdvZcro&t=40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLXAdvZcro&t=40s ... though that distinction shouldn't really matter. The payout is very much a quid pro quo bribe for voters. No additional interpretation of his words is necessary: he's said it very directly himself.
      - AnthonyMouse 12d ago
        > He literally says he'll cut a check for $5,000 for every adult american if the Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms. Which is exactly why it doesn't apply. The money would go to even the people who didn't vote for him. The law you're referring to is about paying people for votes. Someone giving their own money to voters who can prove they cast a ballot in a particular way. Saying that you're going to have taxpayer-funded transfer payments is ordinary politics. If your interpretation was right then proposing to increase social assistance programs would be vote buying in violation of that law.

The people that treat political parties like sports teams are awful and a big part of why we're where we are today, but with the current state of affairs and the choice being between essentially fascism (Republicans) and 1990s conservatism (Democrats), it's not a hard choice. I couldn't agree more with what I think you're implying though, which is that this is a shit state of affairs where we're constantly voting for the lesser of two evils. We need ranked choice and open primaries, imo.

idontwantthis 15d ago

That's not my claim. Republicans just took a vocal public oath of loyalty to their President in which they promised to cheat in the the election. That happened. It's on video. My claim is that you should vote for the other party. That sounds reasonable to me. I voted in the primary against the incumbent. The incumbent won. I will vote for them because the Republican opponent is a documented sexual predator. That is literally true. These are the "two sides" we are dealing with.

atmavatar 15d ago
It's even worse: Trump literally just promised during his midterm convention to pay everyone $5,000 should the Republicans win the midterms. Note that this promise is itself illegal. It is a violation of 18 USC 597. See: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=title%3A18+section%3A597+edition%3Aprelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=title%3A18+section%3...
- AnthonyMouse 14d ago
  That interpretation seems... odd. You seem to be implying that if your policy is to give everyone a tax credit (i.e. give them money) if you win then you're not allowed to tell anyone about it.
  - atmavatar 14d ago
    No. He literally says he'll cut a check for $5,000 for every adult american if the Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms. You don't have to take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NphZBfmnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NphZBfmnE He's also stated that he can issue the money without help from Congress, which directly contradicts the idea that it's harmless bloviating about voting in a 120th Congress to implement specific policy: See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLXAdvZcro&t=40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLXAdvZcro&t=40s ... though that distinction shouldn't really matter. The payout is very much a quid pro quo bribe for voters. No additional interpretation of his words is necessary: he's said it very directly himself.
    - AnthonyMouse 12d ago
      > He literally says he'll cut a check for $5,000 for every adult american if the Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms. Which is exactly why it doesn't apply. The money would go to even the people who didn't vote for him. The law you're referring to is about paying people for votes. Someone giving their own money to voters who can prove they cast a ballot in a particular way. Saying that you're going to have taxpayer-funded transfer payments is ordinary politics. If your interpretation was right then proposing to increase social assistance programs would be vote buying in violation of that law.