You must log in or register to comment.
As usual, mass propaganda turns the world black and white, and divides people exactly into two groups to make sure they never unite.
By the way, you can acknowledge that both sides are made up of the worst scum human history has ever seen and vote for the “lesser evil” at the same time! You don’t have to, and you probably shouldn’t let your vote influence your entire personality and/or belief system.
Both sides can’t be “the worst” if one is “the lesser evil”.
If it’s not your first language it’s confusing, try interpreting “the worst” as “evil”.
The most evil scum human history has seen
Makes perfect sense
Both sides can’t be “evil” if one is “the lesser evil”.
Doesn’t make sense.
Hope that helps!
Both sides can be evil, both sides can’t be “the most” evil if one is the lesser evil.
As a collective, as in, you group both sides into one group of “democratic and republican politicians”, that group is made up of the worst scum human history has ever seen.
Now if you put the individual people in a scale, or break them into certain groups, some will be less bad/evil than others. But that doesn’t change the original statement.
It does. Either they are the most, or they aren’t.
Correct. The group, as a whole, are the most.
Maybe you need a different example to understand.
Take the 400 wealthiest people in the world. They make 2 gangs, first one is made up of the top 200 richest and the second is made up of the 201-400 richest people.
The first group is the richest of the two. But the 2 groups, as a whole, are made up of the richest people in the world.
Make sense?
It doesn’t, because the ideas contradict each other. The top 200 is the richest. Of course other bigger groups contain it. The earth population is the best, and the worst at any metric.
They said both sides are made up of the worst. Not both sides are the worst.
The key difference between your interpretation and how it’s written is the mutual exclusivity. By stating ‘they are the worst’, then yes only one would be the worst. But to say “both are comprised of” doesn’t bring about the same exclusivity as the former.
Imagine there are two benches, if I say to you, both are made up of wood; you wouldn’t then turn around say only one bench could possibly be wood. The same is still true if I say ‘the two benches are made up of the worst wood’. Bench A is 95% worst wood, whereas bench B is 50% worst wood, Both are made up of the worst wood; but one is lesser worst wood, and the statement ‘both benches are made up of the worst wood’ is still true.
Ah, you’re just being a pedant. My bad.
at best is dark gray and black. there aren’t any acceptable candidates. no one is perfect, but come on. how hard is it not to have neoliberal war criminals?
Biden was lip stick on a pig. Trump is cutting a pig open.
Totally the same. Biden picked Deb Holland for head of DOI and attempted to make an earnest apology for the US’s genocide of Natives via boarding schools.
Tronald Dump did exactly the same thing and cut $300 billion from food assistance that includes Indian country, which are basically third world countries with very little access to food, clean water, housing that isn’t a makeshift sheet metal, or healthcare that could prevent life long disabilities and/or premature death.
Biden had one (1) job. And that was to save the union from fascism. He misunderstood, appointed Merrick Fucking Sit On His Hands Garland because of vibes or some shit, and then fucked around. Now we are all finding out what it is like to live under fascism. Thanks Biden!
Yeah. Fuck him.
Insofar as the president is, by nature, a flawed and pressured human being, I generally try to make allowances for poor decision-making, outdated thinking, and political maneuvering (requiring even speech to be measured and often untruthful about intent or feeling - if not outright lies about the facts) both around the electorate and elected officials. It would be unfair to expect miracles of even the best men, much less mediocre compromise candidates of the sort which generally succeed in American politics.
But Biden made a series of unforced errors, and by what became increasingly obvious as immense hubris rather than simple miscalculation. He very well may have lost American democracy (or what amount of democracy we had) to a fascist demagogue, and a remarkably stupid and incoherent fascist demagogue even by the already-low-standards of that job, and it’s very conceivable that even unfucking ONE of Biden’s many mistakes could have made all the difference in preventing that cretin, considering the closeness of the election.
Fuck Biden. His name is mud.
Garland would have been on the Supreme Court if not for Trump, it was thought Garland would come after Trump for revenge over it…
Lol no
I’m pretty sure they wanted Trump to run again because they still, for some ungodly reason, thought they’d have an easy win against him in 2024.
Yes, both of the sides that aren’t interested in fixing wealth inequality, the single most impactful trend, which is required to be fixed to fix many other problems, are the same.
The inability to force the rich to make meaningful concessions is a fatal flaw for both parties
they are a ratchet,
Dems are hell bent in maintaining wealth inequality, while conservatives just want to funnel more inequality into their pockets. then democrats forget that they have the power of fixing things and maintain the new status quo.
Don’t forget:
1-Enabled genocide against increasing opposition from his base. 2-Didn’t go after Trump for treason. 3-Didn’t go after price gouging, giving Trump a massive gift for his campaign. 4-Refused to step down despite clearly being unfit for a second term.
Biden did have a fair number of accomplishments during his term, but each one of these failures outweighs all of them combined.
3-Didn’t go after price gouging, giving Trump a massive gift for his campaign.
I agree with your other points, including the fact that he lost the fucking Republic to fascism through his deeds resulting in his overall legacy being an abject fucking failure, but the tools by which the president could, even purely theoretically, go after price gouging are extremely limited. And political concerns with the ever-fickle and reactionary US electorate would make direct presidential action even of that limited sort of questionable wisdom even for a presidency as motivated on the issue as one headed by Sanders or Warren (assuming the makeup of the rest of the government remained roughly the same).
I agree, though I’m starting to think that we’re being and limited by our own minds here a little. Look at how much raw power Republicans are exerting now, to much more evil ends, and they’re fine doing it. I think if Dems actually grew a spine, many would follow. A reactionary electorate can go both ways, since it’s mainly acting on vibes/spite/etc. Most believe nothing ever happens anyway, which is why they tell you to relax when the MAGA breaks key institutions. So I think some direct presidential action in a good direction would be good. Let the pundits scream all they want, they’ll call him a communist baby eater anyway.
PS: I hope that was coherent, I didn’t proof read it and I haven’t had my coffee yet.
To some degree, I do agree that the spinelessness of Dems works against them.
But on the other hand, Dems have a VERY different demographic than the GOP does. And the Dems have spent the past 30 years building the ‘adult in the room’ narrative which traditionally plays well to the actively voting segment of that demographic, and going for “Fuck the rules, we no longer believe in them” would likely not energize much of the base, and disillusion them the same way many left-wing voters were disillusioned in 2024 by the Harris campaign’s unwillingness to trumpet any firm ideological position.
Ultimately, I think Dem strategy, or lack thereof, is a contributor to this whole debacle - but the fundamental problem is that there’s not really a ‘winning coalition’ that’s evident at this point in American politics. Chasing swing voters by vibes instead of ever-increasingly-milquetoast policy might be marginally more electorally successful (though massively better for the country’s policy), but as unlikely to be the desired silver bullet any more than mainstream Dem attempts at shit like ‘country over party’ or ‘return to normality’ at changing the overall result of elections.
Our electorate is fucked, ideologically incoherent, low-information, and infected with deep, cultural-level maliciousness and tribalism. God knows how we dig ourselves out of this one, but however it might occur, I’m almost certain that it will happen at the grassroots, changing the electorate first and the strategy second (changing the electorate’s outlook, resulting in winning elections and being able to implement rational and useful policy), rather than vice-versa (winning elections and then changing the electorate via implementation of rational and useful policy).
Makes sense, but I have a question though. Wouldn’t the tribalism work in the favor of the “fuck it” approach? Since it would be targeted at Trump and his cronies. Dem voters tend to be all in on locking up Trump. And also, thinking towards more radical things Biden did, like pulling out of Afghanistan and strengthening the NLRB — those would technically be outside the typical Dem comfort zone, but I haven’t seen many Dem voters take issue with that.
Where I’m going with this: I don’t think voters really want this visionless triangulation approach Dems keep doing. I think the DNC wants that. The consultant class, the “it’s his/her/their turn” types. Jim Carville types and other Clinton era fossils who are afraid to call Republicans weird because they value bipartisanship above all else. Not to mention literal controlled opposition rotating villain types like “Manchinema” and now Fetterman. Those guys want compromise, but I actually think voters want a fight. I think they can see plainly that Republicans are going low and don’t actually want Dems to go high like Michelle Obama famously said — they want Dems to go lower and beat the GOP at their own game.
Again, all the tribalism and spite and brianrot, those are very conducive to a more aggressive approach rather than this “let them discredit themselves” crap. The latest polls favoring AOC, the Fight Oligarchy crowd sizes, the dismal disapproval of the Democratic Party as a whole, all these show that people are aware that the “adult jn the room” days are over and it’s a fight for survival. I’ll give you that once things hopefully get back to normal, they’ll start their finger wagging again, but right now? I kinda doubt it. If anything, the less vocal hashtag resistance is more a sign of people being tired, disappointed, and resigning themselves to the idea that nobody is fighting for them anymore and they just have to make do and keep their heads low because that’s how you survive fascism.
Disclaimer: not American, I’m from across the pond but I follow US politics closely because it affects us as well.
Makes sense, but I have a question though. Wouldn’t the tribalism work in the favor of the “fuck it” approach?
We’re back at the “GOP and Dems have a different core demographic”. There’s not a massive as-of-yet-untapped tribalist voting bloc waiting for the DNC to ratchet up their rhetoric.
Where I’m going with this: I don’t think voters really want this visionless triangulation approach Dems keep doing. I think the DNC wants that. The consultant class, the “it’s his/her/their turn” types. Jim Carville types and other Clinton era fossils who are afraid to call Republicans weird because they value bipartisanship above all else. Not to mention literal controlled opposition rotating villain types like “Manchinema” and now Fetterman. Those guys want compromise, but I actually think voters want a fight. I think they can see plainly that Republicans are going low and don’t actually want Dems to go high like Michelle Obama famously said — they want Dems to go lower and beat the GOP at their own game.
I agree entirely. Like I said, the strategy, or lack thereof, of the Dems is a contributor to this entire debacle.
Again, all the tribalism and spite and brianrot, those are very conducive to a more aggressive approach rather than this “let them discredit themselves” crap. The latest polls favoring AOC, the Fight Oligarchy crowd sizes, the dismal disapproval of the Democratic Party as a whole, all these show that people are aware that the “adult jn the room” days are over and it’s a fight for survival. I’ll give you that once things hopefully get back to normal, they’ll start their finger wagging again, but right now? I kinda doubt it. If anything, the less vocal hashtag resistance is more a sign of people being tired, disappointed, and resigning themselves to the idea that nobody is fighting for them anymore and they just have to make do and keep their heads low because that’s how you survive fascism.
I think you vastly overestimate the appetite and appeal of conflict for most American voters at this point in time. We run in extremely left-leaning circles here in Lemmy, but while there’s general dissatisfaction with the Dem party, a majority of voters want it to stay the course or become more moderate rather than radicalize. And while that’s pig-fucking stupidity, it’s… well, we play the hand we’re dealt, not the one we want.
My point about abandoning the long-standing pandering to suburban professionals and other unplugged moderates who crave civility politics wasn’t an endorsement of the Dems continuing the ‘adult in the room’ strategy, only suggesting that there are definite and serious electoral costs to changing the strategy, and that prior experience does not engender confidence in harnessing the ‘anger’ of other Dem demographics as a means of increasing electoral success.
Changing the strategy means telling the Dems, as a whole, ‘the party doesn’t need the support of the suburban middle class; progressives will make up the difference’.
And while I agree that attempting to further shore up the suburban middle class is clearly not a winning fucking strategy, progressives - even for progressive darlings like Sanders - simply do not command the votes necessary to change the electoral balance in this country, as things currently stand. It goes back to the core point I made - that the fundamental problem is we lack a clear ‘winning coalition’ more than that we lack a winning strategy (though we do also, clearly, lack a winning strategy as well). There’s no strategic silver bullet that the DNC is just ‘missing’, or too corrupt to adopt. We’re in a bad fucking position, and changing the electorate is probably more useful than changing strategy (though there’s nothing stopping us from agitating for both, I feel it’s important to emphasize that changing strategy alone is not going to be anything but kicking the can down the road - I remember the triumphalism of the successful strategy of the Obama years and how that fucking panned out)
Breaking things by not following the rules is easy. All Democrats can do right now is threaten to … Also break things, hoping Republicans would back down. But that only helps them.
I don’t mean break things so much as push things and not back down the instant some parliamentarian disagrees. I want them to put goals above process, if that makes sense. And obviously to have actual good goals.
The reason for Republicans corruption is literally the power they have. If Democrats took up that power, it wouldn’t fix anything. Then we’d have two equally corrupted unanswerable parties. Running roughshod over us.
Anyone who thought anyone at that level of government could or would save them has only fooled themselves. That level of government has never and will never represent us. Literally, look to the times it sort of seemed like it did. Like the new deal era 100 years ago that did a lot to exclude Black’s and minorities. Then realize that even that little bit was an exception and an outlier.
Nothing would be materially different had Sanders won. Because he wouldn’t have had a base of legislative support etc. He would have had better rhetoric if that’s all that mattered to you. But in terms of what he could get done. It wouldn’t be much different. When you vote for a president if you aren’t voting for anyone to fix something. You are voting for someone to manage the damage and trying to keep it from getting out of hand. That is all.
No president will ever save us. The only ones capable of saving us are ourselves. People have been so complacent. That we have sleepy octogenarians, dying in office. Generally running unopposed. That’s on us. Yes the National Party will fight against us. They’ve always been the enemy. It’s only right for them to fight against us. It’s wrong that we haven’t been fighting back against them.
I don’t know if two is exactly Fair. I would say more importantly that that he appointed Merrick Garland a fucking useless milk toast. That Garland didn’t go after Trump. I’m okay with the president not personally conducting investigations and trials.
lol it’s milquetoast and that gives me hope for Lemmy not being entirely populated by bots right at this moment
Eh, same difference. I very much doubt he appointed Garland without knowing exactly what he’d do (or, more accurately, not do).
That’s never really the impression I had from him being appointed. I don’t think that much thought really went into it. I think it was more of a kind of a stunt/ fuck you to the Republicans for not letting him be on the Supreme Court. Kind of a see we’re going to use them since y’all wouldn’t. Which I think they regretted later. So I guess what I’m really saying is it’s Obama’s fault lol.
Liberal voters liked Biden so much the emulated him by doing nothing to stop Trump.
Your thinking of the fake “progressives” that did nothing on election day.
- when everyone is price gouging and the high prices stick, that’s inflation, which Biden did go after.
Meh.
IMO, the problem is that Dems aren’t focusing on the economy in the correct way. Yeah, Biden did some good things. But you’ve still got massive wealth inequality, high rents and home prices, venture capital firms buying up small companies and jacking prices way the fuck up, executives raking in huge profits and salaries while laying off workers, etc. Dems keep saying, “the economy is great!” while working class people–the vast middle class in the US, which includes mid-level white collar jobs–are feeling like they’re working hard for less. Ever since the crash in '08, jobs have been less stable, and people have been turning to gig work to make ends meet, or to have anything extra in their budgets. Sanders is the only left-leaning politician that’s really banging on that drum.
Dems used to be out there running for good jobs for hard working people, work with dignity that you could live on. But they’ve been ignoring their roots for the last 40 years, and have been bought and sold by corporate America. The liberlization/globalization of the economy [EDIT] has largely been a disaster for working-class people, as they’ve been forced to compete against lower-wage workers, while the capitalist class gets even larger profits. (OOH, the liberalization of America’s trade policies has resulted in millions of people outside of the US being able to live in something other than grinding, abject poverty.)
In addition to that, Biden’s debate performance was a fucking disaster, and made it very, very clear to everyone that he was absolutely not fit to be president. Harris should have put some distance between herself and Biden, but she couldn’t, or wouldn’t; she was suggesting that we continue the same policies that are squeezing the working class, rather than calling for systemic reform.
Meanwhile, Trump was promising that he’d make foreign companies pay, and that he’d bring good jobs back. If you’re a low-information voter that doesn’t understand how tariffs work, and don’t think about the logistics of bringing all the manufacturing back, then this sound great.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the whole right wing media machine telling people–mostly men–that they’re right to feel screwed. And yeah, they are. It’s just that it’s not ‘libs’, women, typical immigrants, etc.; it’s corporate profiteering, trade globalization, the loss of power from unions, importing highly-skilled labor to displace higher-paid American workers (e.g., H1-B abuse), outsourcing everything, etc.
If Dems want to win, they need to get serious about good jobs that pay a living wage for middle America, putting a choke-chain on corporate profiteering, and rebuilding the power of labor.
They won’t; sponsored by the big capital, they are not capable of providing a large systemic change without losing the platform to speak on.
The issue is systemic, and Dems are not fit to solve it. Third party, funded by the regular people, is the only way forward.
They won’t; sponsored by the big capital
Yes, but that doesn’t mean they can’t get away from it. Sanders managed to run very strong presidential primary campaigns, twice, and almost all of his funding was from individual donors giving his campaign under $100 each.
Dems could do this, if leadership had the will.
3rd parties can’t, or they can’t yet, because none of them have put in sufficient work at a grassroots level yet to consistently win places on state legislatures, much less federally.
These comments make me realize just how many people don’t really know their history.
Do not glorify Biden. Go back to Obama if you want an actual worthwhile role model. Biden was 110% on board with Bush in going to Iraq and spent the last 20 years of his career aggressively trying to break social security. Fuck boomer Biden.
I would say Obama is even worse than Biden as a role model to glorify.
You can draw a direct line between Obama’s fellating of wall street and the rise to power of MAGA. He was elected on a mandate to punish the bankers and utterly failed at this task, he failed to enshrine Roe Vs Wade, and started a few wars. Combine this with other events like the management of Bernie Sanders’ first attempt at the presidency, and you have a spectacularly inept democrat party that lost all credibility/appeal with swing voters.
Taking the current politics at face value, Trump would have 0 appeal if the democrats had a reasonable management of the border, if the democrats had actual economic politics instead of identity politics and didn’t bend the knee to the military industrial complex as much as republicans did.
Which wars did Obama start?
I might have misspoke: it would be more accurate to state that he got the US involved in wars, rather than starting them. More specifically, he’s criticized for getting the US in five wars and saber rattling with Iran.
So…
Afghanistan that Obama inherited from W., 2 wars in Iraq Obama inherited from W., training Syrian troops (who eventually did win) as a result of the Arab Spring and Assad gassing his own people which Obama did not start, and countering Yemen’s Houthi aggression which could really be argued that Obama did too little to counter as we are still dealing with it to this day with Iran aiding the Houthis…
Iran has been a problem for the US since the Carter administration, can’t really say Obama started that one either
Still unclear which if any of these conflicts Obama involved in
Sometimes it is best to be on the right side of history by being involved in a military conflict.
Being involved in a conflict does not automatically make it a bad thing
I don’t really feel like rehashing all the ways that the Iraq/Afghanistan war were disastrous
training Syrian troops (who eventually did win) as a result of the Arab Spring and Assad gassing his own people which Obama did not start
You need to read about Timber Sycamore. Assad did a lot of bad things, but it’s mental to imply that it was worth investing in Al-Qaeda affiliated militias to overthrow him. The new leader in Syria had a $10* million bounty on his head before rising to power in Syria, he is a leader of a splinter group of Al-Qaeda.
The Assad overthrow is not the pure-wholesome western win that you think it is. Sectarian minorities have been ethnically cleansed by these Syrian rebels now in power.
If you think that this is a success story from Obama’s admin, I’m afraid there’s no point discussing any longer.
Directions unclear
Is it because the CIA was involved that you automatically assume it was bad or that Al-Qaeda is the same organization it was 25 years ago?
25 years ago? The guy was wanted as a terrorist with a $10m bounty in 2017, the fuck you mean “25 years ago”. The bounty was rescinded because he overthrew a government seen as hostile by Israel and the US.
Are you just ignoring the article I linked describing mass killings of Alawite? Are you trying to defend those guys?
“the border” is a republican red herring, there’s basically nothing to fix, drugs and immigrants come other ways. Immigrants commit crimes at a rate much lower than citizens. It’s all republican lies that democrats are somehow fix.
Otherwise you can read about the hotels being turned into expensive migrant refuges, which I’ve seen reported about across the country. The government was paying for that, for non-citizens, during an ongoing homelessness crisis.
Look at all the cheap slave-labor that vanished into thin air the moment Trump started deporting people.
You guys absolutely had a problem with immigration. And not only did the democrats not offer any actual solution, the problem got worse under their watch. This is a prime example of democrats having useless identity politics where they address problems by brow-beating people and calling them racist, rather than doing anything for their citizens.
Across the country != the border
I didn’t say no problems with immigration. Please leave the goalpost where it was.
Then explain your point better because you aren’t making sense.
“there’s basically nothing to fix” => “I didn’t say no problems with immigration.”
Basically nothing != nothing
At least he really pushed back against the ongoing genoci- oh wait, no, he did the opposite of that.
*Jimmy Carter
He was the guy who knew what needed to be done decades beforehand and was ousted by the mechanations of the neocons. I wonder how much could be different if Reagan wasn’t able to make that deal with Iran to win the election.
i once tried to go president by president in Wikipedia wondering how far I have to go before I find one president that didn’t commit war crimes.
i gave up,
Careful you don’t step in bullshit: U.S. President Joe Biden did not sign an executive order to cancel Social Security benefits and the Supplemental Security Income program and did not ban side jobs, contrary to social media posts asserting saying he did so in March 2024. The posts feature a years-old video where Biden talks about the risk of not raising the debt ceiling.
Gonna also address why his nickname in Congress was Jim Crow Joe?
Sure, those were Trump surrogates pushing that nickname during the 2020 campaign. Not people I’d trust, ever. I’m not saying Joe doesn’t have his issues, but your examples are shit.
No, it originated from a 1975 Senate hearing where civil rights lawyer Jack Greenberg took Joe Biden to task for sponsoring bills that would prevent desegregation in Delaware.
The nickname really caught on after the series of “new Jim Crow” legislation, nomination, etc. that culminated in the 90s crime bill.
He was chosen as Obama’s VP explicitly due to that history along with that nickname as a form of appeasement with the “white moderates”.
Glorification of the badies, because the worst came to power…
Too bad Biden will be remembered for his greed and wanting a second term just to doom us to Trump’s second term. All the good he did will be wiped out over the next 4 years.
his greed and wanting a second term just to
No. Jesus Christ this gets old.
- Find out the last time an incumbent swapped their candidate.
- Find the 3 times before that too.
- Notice a trend.
Come back and revise your statement.
Go fucking learn.
The majority of voters understood his first run at his ancient age was as a one term president. He was a trash candidate, but that made it bearable. He flipped on that and possibly lost us the union
Did you read this? His mental faculties were very clearly failing him during his term. Obviously, he could not have remained in office for 4 more years: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/may/25/original-sin-joe-biden-book-review
Does that trend take into consideration the incumbent being highly unpopular and in clear cognitive decline? Does it take into account polling showing that the incumbant was going to lose by a massive margin?
Go look at the polls. Every poll showed “undeclared democrat” crushing it. Biden polled the worst and Harris polled the second worst. Maybe you should go learn.
“Go learn” he says while being aggressively wrong. Jesus Christ man hahaha
Genocide
Genocide Joe is the liberal hero
Yeah we need to not make Biden look like he was perfect and only good, it’s very easy to illustrate how much better he was than Trump without ignoring the bad.
So there’s two factors that gave Trump (barely) the election (all the battleground states were narrowly chosen)
One, I speculate and no one seems to be addressing, is the trillion-dollar far-right propaganda machine. FOX News, OANN, Michael Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan and so on. It’s continuously pumping content out to the population telling them that liberals are all communists and women should all be tradwives. Also that everyone nonwhite or poor is a leech on the economy.
The other is the King Log vs. King Stork thing. In those industrialized nations where the left-side party is neoliberal (preserves the status quo), the far right parties get strong support. It was happening across Europe around when Trump got elected, though there’s been a left-side push-back since, possibly due to Trump providing a visible example of who they don’t want in office. Canada’s economist / banker PM was elected due to Trump, we are pretty sure.
Biden was as right wing as they come in the Democratic party, and for 2020 the party’s principals (who get their own votes) chose him, deciding that everyone else was too socialist for them. Biden was Biden (that is, an establishment neoliberal, with some efforts to appeal to the public. And then in 2024 he pulled out of the race, and Harris took over and in the last few months of campaigning appealed to less-nazi Republicans, which alienated her base.
The election was won by MAGA disciples voting only top ballot (for Trump and nothing else) and lost by low-information Democrats who weren’t motivated or decided to send a message by failing to show.
Regardless, figuring out how he won is more important than figuring out how to get rid of him, because even if he dies, the GOP is going to church out Secret Hitler after Secret Hitler, and the Democratic party, determined not to go left, is going to fall into irrelevance, just before they are imprisoned / killed as political enemies.
lost by low-information Democrats
Seventy-seven million people voted to unperson huge demographics of Americans which has included both legal aliens and American citizens, which is a breach of the social contract.
So yeah, the voters were wrong. Now we’re trying to figure out why, and whether the human species is just doomed to stratified societies and extinction through industrial pollution.
Don’t forget about the efforts to disenfranchise voters. Registered voter roll purges. Threats against their physical safety. Bomb threats. Closing of polling locations in blue districts. Overwhelmingly long lines in blue districts. Probationary ballots. Signature verification.
FFS it took me 6 months to renew my DL in a red state. The minute I got fed up with it and drove two hours to the middle of no where I was able to renew that same day. The voter disenfranchisement is real and intentional.
The GOP effectively purged almost 5 million votes from the voter rolls.
Look how many votes trump won by.
Yeah I’m not sure I buy the whole Musk-stole-the-election thing with hacked machines and starlink. But I know with certainty that they stole the election by preventing people from voting.
There are certainly some mathematical abnormalities with the voting data indicative of manipulation. Whether that’s actual tampering with voting machines like Trump inferred or just maga hats voting for the first time only for their god king is hard to say for sure.
This. I personally think they hacked the election, and they also purged the voter rolls.
TIL I learned about King Log vs. King Stork / Heron / Snake
Ironic since all of those bills were heavily cut down to gain “bipartisan” support and then Republicans still refused to vote for them, classic Democrat move. Kinda like how he gave up the race to Trump and then went on a photo tour with him like they’re buddies (which is pretty massive evidence for the Uniparty theory imo).
Ironic since all of those bills were heavily cut down to gain “bipartisan” support and then Republicans still refused to vote for them, classic Democrat move.
They were heavily cut down to gain the support of ‘moderate’ Dems whose support to pass them was literally indispensable. The Senate was literally at 50-50 for the first two years, and 51-49 for the next two.
Yeah, working together is a totally classic Democrat move. Got 'em.
Which policy do you think we should work together with Republicans on?
Why not add a third party here?
Because there haven’t been any 3rd party presidents :(
Yep hence I support the underdogs. Choosing the least worse is still worse.
You mean like Gil Stein popping her ugly head out of one of Putin’s suit pockets every 4 years? 😅
i think it’s more likely that the media only gives her attention during the elections.
she’s been arrested in may for protesting the genocide and it didn’t even make the news.
double checked, she’s charged with first degree trespassing and forth degree assault for allegedly kicking a cop and hitting him with a bicycle. they say that the officer was injured.
the court date was may19 but there’s literally nothing about it online.
Ah, good point. Also, the fuck you doing, Stein? 😅
Or Biden who supported genocide? Literally majority of Republican and democrat?
Or trump who wants to accelerate genocide?
Biden did the same. What’s your take? U think Biden stopped the Israel war? Let’s be realistic. U are saying as if Biden stopped Zionist.
Is this your boy Biden?
I didn’t say Biden stopped anything.
There’s watching a fire without helping, and even selling gasoline to the arsonist if you will, and there’s shooting the burning victims with a bazooka. And building a hotel on their dead bodies.
Yep. I was registered Democrat. It’s not my party anymore. I don’t care what people have to save about saving America. Democrats won’t save America unless we have Bernie or AOC as consultant.
I’m not even American, I’m just over here enjoying my Healthcare and my social safety net, and not putting words in people’s mouths.
I thought you were asking for a third party? Don’t know how Biden can appear twice but ok.
Biden, Hillary, every Democrats are from same gang. Nothing different. Best to avoid both parties.
I’m so confused. lol This has to be bait.
Cannot see what going on? May be this is why we are back and forth between two parties.
Lol Bruh, I’m not even American.
