It’s really cute watching all the Neolibs pretend like their conservative policies attract the leftists they need to win elections.
Sucking up to a demographic of old white conservative men was not a winning strategy for the Democratic party.
For a second I thought I saw my name and was confused what this had to do with me :-D
I mean you guys elected that asshole…
I was also on the side of vote for Kamala fix it after because with Trump fixing is impossible with Kamala maybe. But whenever I see stuff like
45 Democrats Vote With GOP to Pass Bill Sanctioning ICC Over Netanyahu Warrant
Senate Overwhelmingly Rejects Sanders Resolutions to Block Arms Sales to Israel
it makes me doubt how feasible this approach would be too. Sure Kamala is factors of magnitude better than Trump for the USA, for Ukraine, for LGBTQ people, for women etc. But I can understand a US citizen with roots in the middle east etc not voting for Democrats after seeing disgusting stuff like this.
“PATRIOT Act” passed Senate 98 to 1. Partisanship is for complete morons.
45 out of 215 Democrats voted for that or around 21% vs 90% of Republicans. This means that the crazy option is wildly unpopular and would never pass under a democrat. I’m not seeing the problem here.
45 out of 215 Democrats voted for that or around 21% vs 90% of Republicans.
21% of Democratic voters voting for Republican candidates would be completely unacceptable. Why is it ok for 21% of our representatives to vote for genocide?
Oh right. It’s ok when it’s the only thing centrists actually want.
And “centrist” in the US really means far right.
45 democrats didn’t vote the way you want? And how many republicans didn’t? Are you really saying both sides are the same?
No they are not but I am convinced that about 2/3 of the democrats don’t give a shit about the party they are a member of nor its voters. If their only opportunity was to be a republican candidate they would jump at that opportunity without any internal moral conflicts. And I understand how frustrating it must be when a majority of a party that you are told to vote for has no moral issues with bombing a country where your relatives live to the ground.
There are 215 Democrats currently serving in the house. The 45 that voted with Republicans don’t even make up a quarter let alone 2/3.
I am talking about the Sanders vote though. I think, there were about 10 that said yes to stop selling weapons.
two different wings of the same shitbird…
Not even different wings. Both are right wing parties. The left wing of this bird was long since broken.
BlueMAGA is literally Russian propaganda. Anyone who uses the term unironically is a troll.
Liz Cheney
Didn’t realize Liz Cheney called herself a democrat
Watch your tone Liz Cheney is a national hero for Democrats https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-award-liz-cheney-others-with-presidential-citizens-medal-2025-01-02/
Neither blue or MAGA tbh
Do tell how she ended up on a stage next to Kamala if she was not Blue.
The MAGA part is the denialism from Democrats about it.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Liz Chaney is a staunch opponent of Donald Trump, she is a career politician, and the last of the Grand-Old-Party. In a desperate attempt to stop MAGA from replacing the GOP Liz Chaney aligned herself with Kamila Harris and that’s why. I’d argue that makes her a Red Democrat more than a Blue Republican but really that’s down to interpretation. I don’t think anyone was in denial about why she was being paraded around like neat novelty. These are strange times my dudes.
I use it unironically and just think you’re an idiot.
inb4 comment removed!
Privatized gains, socialized losses except instead of losing money, your daughters die of a miscarriage in the waiting rooms of hospitals
Missed the point again award. If people want to vote for conservatives, they’re going to vote for conservatives, not conservatives lite. If people want to vote for leftists, they’re going to vote third party, vote for the dipshit threatening to tear it all down, or stay home, not vote for conservatives lite. If you’d take a few seconds to really use your noggin, you’d understand that people are fucking drowning and desperate for a change. Not “lol the guys at the Goldman Sachs fundraiser said we should think about a 1% COLA for social security”, I’m talking burn the house down and start over change. There’s a reason why there’s the phenomenon of the Obama-Bernie-Trump voter or Bernie-Trump voter. It’s not the sexism, it’s the promise of change. Obama failed to deliver, and Bernie didn’t happen, which just leaves us with that fucking guy. The democrats miscalculated twice and thought that voters surely wouldn’t vote for that fucking guy over their promise of change so mild that even fox news would get bored. It’s not the voter’s fault that the democrats failed to put forward a good platform. To the Democratic party and the people towing this line, I say: voters don’t owe you victory. In fact, voters don’t owe you a goddamn thing. Stop blaming them and get your shit together or get out of the way.
Yes to all of this. Neolibs in this thread are really pressed.
Probably still would’ve been less bad if people voted for the lesser of two evils though
Maybe. There’s an argument for accelerationism. I’m not convinced of it yet, but clearly the system has entrenched interests that benefit from things being awful for everyone else, and the majority power in the Democratic party has showed that it’s all too willing to roll up its sleeves and make minor adjustments. Most folks don’t have 3000 years to wait for the democrats to finally adjust things to where they need to be, and in the case of climate change, we certainly don’t have that time. Yes, pushing the system to collapse is going to be fucking awful, but I actually wonder if the net suffering will be less than waiting however long it takes for the lesser evil to turn good.
The argument against is that people like me need healthcare and are about to get fucked.
I guess. I worked in EMS for fifteen years and saw my fair share of the system exploiting, abusing, and killing (yeah, I’ll stand by that one) people for profit. We’ve also had major medical events in the family, and had to deal with the insurance fucking with us to try and get out of paying. It only ever seems to move in one direction, which is towards fucking people harder. A system like that deserves a swift kick in the pants, not a gentle polishing.
It sounds like it relies on the hopium that at some point people will wake up. You are certainly more optimistic than I would be.
Biden did more to battle climate change than any president in living memory. Trump has done the opposite, we don’t have another four years of runway to speed the collapse, the time for revolution was when Bush stole the election.
Dude, we’re just not going to meet the climate goals we need to. Not with Biden, not with Trump. We need someone that’s not afraid of the owner class bitching and moaning and withholding donations, and our system simply isn’t wired that way.
But I’ll bite, what did Biden do to address climate change, and what’s the tangible impact?
The Inflation Reduction Act encouraged $3 trillion of investments in renewable energy, he’s been working to triple nuclear energy production, and he blocked the construction of oil pipelines.
It’s not about picking a candidate to meet the goals, that ship has sailed. We had the choice between Biden/Harris and Trump, the difference in climate policy between them is staggering.
Biden did more to battle climate change than any president in living memory.
You know what causes ungodly amounts of pollution? war. Blowing up and burning whole cities. Biden sent the bombs that blew up all of the west bank and Gaza, and ensured the war would continue. Dont lecture us about how great an environmental president he was. Biden also set up drilling and mineral exploitation everywhere. He was no environmentalist.
As opposed to all the presidents we’ve had who didn’t send bombs to Israel or set up drilling and mineral exploitation?
We need to invest in renewable energy production if we are going to survive the next century, Biden invested more than any president in my lifetime.
…No, he didn’t. Just by any measure no he didn’t. Even if you just limit it to US presidents, no he didn’t. Nixon did more for climate change than Biden, by several orders of magnitude.
I have no idea, so in total seriousness, I would love to hear details.
Nixon created the EPA, expanded the national park system as well as explicitly protected the Everglades from development, and worked to transition from coal to nuclear power. He was the last of the conservativism = conservation conservatives.
There are accounts he primarily did all of this to just ensure his reelection and accumulate political capital and good will, but that hardly changes the fact he was one of the best US presidents in terms of environmental policy.
Thanks for the info!
Temporarily yes. Perhaps not in the long run, though. Sometimes you have to go through some pain to cure the disease.
You could call it temporary if this was part of a clear plan for a better future. But it isn’t.
The Trump victory doesn’t lead to anything good. It isn’t ‘temporary’ pain for a long-term fix. It is simply going in the wrong direction, and it won’t turn around by with magic or wishful thinking.
No one has anything like a plan to fix things. The point is to break everything hard enough that the staunch status quo idiots with their heads in the sand are forced to look up and start doing something. Failing that we’ll have a quick death rather than a long and torturous one.
So your plan is to fuck everything up in order to motivate ‘status quo idiots’ to do something, so that you don’t have to. Is that about right?
It seems to me that instead of trying to make things worse, you could instead try to make things better. But I guess activism is much easier when you don’t actually have to do anything yourself.
To be clear, this isn’t my plan. I’m just relaying the reality of the situation to you. This is what is happening and we have to deal with it.
This is more putting through people through certain pain for uncertain, perhaps never coming cure.
Hell of a gamble.
Slow death versus a possible quick death with a chance for a cure.
It’s like facing a canyon and hitting the gas pedal instead of working slowing the car down. But they, who knows, there might be a ramp lol
It’s more like facing a cliff and pulling the handbrake to crash the car in the hopes it rolls to a stop before going over the edge instead of bickering about what speed we want to go over the cliff at.
Handbrake would be a drastic action to slow down. In this case accelerationists want to accelerate towards the cliff, hoping there’s some good outcome from that, instead of trying to slow down.
Though it’s true that that doesn’t capture the fact that it’s outright making things worse for people, especially minority groups, for really uncertain hope that things will drastically improve.
instead of bickering about what speed we want to go over the cliff at
It seems sensible to try and vote to slow down the speed instead of accelerating lol. With slower speed you have more time to actually stop the car.
Just a different kind of evil. Not lesser.
What sort of evil are you thinking of that Kamala would do that Trump wouldn’t also do, but even worse?
I don’t even want the democrats to get their shit together. I want them to get the fuck out of the way. That party needs to go the way of the fucking whigs.
When Democrats move to the right in order to capture conservative votes, conservatives don’t believe they’re sincere. But the left does.
The AOC+Trump voters would also fall into that category
Very fucking right. It’s toe the line though if you’re interested in improving things in a very small way.
I’ve heard that before, but tow the line, as in to pull something by a tether, makes contextual sense to me. Folks are doing work trying to carry that argument.
The phrase is authoritarian. As in “you’d better get your toes on the line I just drew in the dirt, or I’m gonna hang ya, boy.”
Didn’t know that, thanks!
I do love it when you can justify using a different homophone than the etymologically correct one.
“eggcorns”. You can really do some fun ones. For all intensive purposes, they’re pretty much equivalent.
At least centrists didn’t have to move left.
Yes, they got to maintain their rightwing purity.
This is like being smug because you let the dog shit inside to make a point about how you never wanted a dog in the first place.
At least your purity is intact, and that’s what matters most.
Nobody let a dog shit anywhere. Trump gained like 3 million votes compared to last time, and Harris/Biden lost like 6 million. You want to blame someone, blame the 77 million openly fascist voters, not the < 1 million third party voters who didn’t make up a sixth of the difference that your genocidal candidate lost by. The fact that you want to go online and pontificate about how the real activists cost the election, when they didn’t, just shows that for you this is all about your ego and has nothing to do with justice or making a better world. You can’t even take responsibility for the absolute monster you did vote for. You can’t even get the facts of the situation straight, that’s how much you really care.
Bruh I am not the one going into every thread whining about centrists. Right or wrong, acting smug isn’t helpful to all the actual vulnerable people who are about to eat shit. I get that y’all are privileged enough that it doesn’t matter, but how about a bit of empathy for those who aren’t.
Oh yeah, the old “the only people in the US pointing out that it’s an empire that kills millions of people are privileged” line.
My point is largely that the hallmark of an internet troll is that they don’t ever engage on any other topics and then change the subject early and often. We are talking about whether it’s productive to come into every thread about US politics and be smug that Donald Trump won, and whether this serves any productive political endgame besides some kind of juvenile accelerationism.
I’m not sure what empire has to do with it or how you think Donald Trump is going to change that.
Now I’m confused. Who is your original message about?
Well of course! You’re privileged to be American! Now pick up that rifle, American Exceptionalism needs to be enforced by violent colonization under the guise of nation building. That IPhone was made in China after all.
I’m glad we have a sexual assaulter to tell us how it is.
*ignores voters*
*loses election*
“heh, stupid voters”
Bruh that’s crazy about that dude’s virginity
I’m so confused, why is that there.
It looks to me like a joke about not getting laid.
But it’s extra silly because it’s a dude talking about his virginity growing back, when afaik that phrase probably referred to a woman’s hymen growing back after a long dry spell (which would also have been a joke).
I’m actually less concerned with the OP but more with how George Takei feels the need to double down on it
George Takei and his family were literally in a camp when he was a child, because all Japanese living in America were “a threat” during WWII.
He understandably has no chill when fascism is involved.
Okay but again, I’m not referring to the the white text but the part of his virginity growing back
What?
I said “I’m actually less concerned with the OP but more with how George Takei feels the need to double down on it”
This elevator is a little crowded, I see why you couldn’t hear me
I was thinking that too, but I think it’s because the og post is Twitter and George Takei is BlueSky. He just wanted to credit the original post.
Yes either way, I would like to know why Takei is thinking his virginity is growing back
I think it’s a reference about how fucked we are about to be. Like Madonna sang… like a virgin.
I think if it’s growing back that’s a sign of very little fucking going on. And I’m not sure which Madonna song you’re referring to, but if it’s American Pie by Don McLean, that song is about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly.
I have two fists
Won’t be 4 years.
Right, this is definitely going to be a life sentence.
Tankies and their fucking accelerationism.
Capitalists and their fucking accelerationism.
Why not both?
Tankies in America are inconsequential and don’t exist in real life in any kind of meaningful number. They’re online edgelords who need to touch grass.
Capitalists have all of the power.
Name one tankie
Now do capitalists.
This was probably the wealthiest, most powerful group I had ever encountered. Yet here they were, asking a Marxist media theorist for advice on where and how to configure their doomsday bunkers. That’s when it hit me: at least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology. (1)
If they’re too insignificant to listen to, they’re too insignificant to blame.
More brilliant political analysts who still haven’t managed to figure out the reason both parties near-unanimously support genocide. Have a downvote, on me.
Also, Dems lost, what was it, 10x as many votes as people who voted third party?
And notice where your outrage is actually directed here. Not at the people who actually VOTED for Trump. It’s at the people who refused to compromise their morals AT ALL, unlike you all, who completely compromised your morals in a failing bid to elect Mrs. “Genocide With A Facelift”.
Fuck Republicans, fuck Democrats. That moral superiority you so desperately want to claim, does not exist. You are the problem. You are the driving force behind the empire. You are responsible for their deaths. Take your attempt to blame actual activists and people actually struggling to make the world a better place, and shove it right up your ass.
You got the downvotes but not from me! Fuck these people. They’re so fucking dumb it’s painful.
Fuck the Republicans and fuck the Democrats, sure. But voting is about politics, not making a personal moral statement. That kind of thinking is dumb as fuck and would have been self defeating in every election since George Washington. Politics is always about compromise, and compromise about issues that matter is always a punch in the gut. Effective activism is about winning what you can, taking the hits, and showing up to do it again and again.
Voters who had a choice between two candidates that both support a genocide are not responsible for that genocide. I know a few things about moral reasoning, and no moral system I’m aware of would ever come to such an insane conclusion.
Removed by mod
We have a FPTP election system. Third parties aren’t a real thing. In my 50+ years on this planet, third parties have only had a minor impact once, and it was deeply antithetical to their goal.
How the fuck is a third party strategy not “electoralism”? You must realize that both dominant parties encourage third parties when it benefits them. The greens are almost entirely funded by conservatives.
50 years is, what, 12 major election cycles. So that’s your sample size - twelve.
Here’s a larger sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Popular_vote_results
Let’s go back to even just 1900. 1912 our first major upset - 41.8%, 27%, 23.2%, and 6%. Looks nothing like a 50/50 split. 1920 had a huge landslide, 60%/34.2%, and 3.4% behind that. 1924? 54%, 28.8%, 16.6%. More landslides through FDR’s term. Fast forward to 1968 - American Independent party with a staggering 13.5% of the vote. 6.6% in 1980. 18.9% in 1992. Only since then - namely, since Bush v. Gore, even though Bush pretty objectively lost the election both in EC and popular (besides Supreme Court intervention), have we really settled into the “lesser of two evils” mentality and been blaming third parties for any Republican victory, with the mindset we MUST vote for Democrats. And yet our methods of popular organization have become dramatically more sophisticated! We have instantaneous global communication, social networks, you name it. So what the fuck is going on? IT’S LITERALLY THE “LESSER OF TWO EVILS” MENTALITY ITSELF.
You are shooting yourselves in the foot, voting for Democrats and ruling out any real change, when the Democrats are so openly genocidal and corrupt. Even the Republicans, for their absolute lack of insight and vision and understanding, are able to perceive something’s wrong with the Democrat politicians, and that’s why Trump is able to sweep them all up into his camp. This has literally enabled the rise of fascism and the defeat of real populism (like your Eugene Debs figures back in the early 1900s). You run something absolutely uninspiring and awful and genocidal, among a voter base that’s SUPPOSED to be the one that’s more motivated by justice and equality, and they predictably lose. I don’t particularly like Bernie Sanders, but the Dem party wouldn’t even let him run, they ran Hillary instead, and bam, Trump won. How many times do you need to see this play out?
The last time we got a shake up in the two party system was with the civil war. Even then, we didn’t get three parties, we just replaced one party with another. 1912 was a notable but unrepeatable exception, but not an “upset”. We still elected one of the two major parties, and four years later it was back to Republicans and Democrats. It’s also notable that Taft and Roosevelt were both Republicans, so Roosevelt running as a Progressive meant that they split the vote and Democrats won with only 41.8% of the vote. Republicans were the left party at the time, so the left split the vote and got a conservative. Your exception shows exactly why third party runs are boneheaded.
Any third party that had the means to run a viable third party candidate would easily be capable of running an inside strategy to replace the Democratic establishment. Unlike the fantasy of a third party approach, that strategy has worked in the past. If there aren’t enough Democratic voters who are pissed enough at the Democratic establishment to do a takeover of the party, then there definitely aren’t enough to win a third party strategy.
It’s a protest vote and not a serious one. Nobody is seriously voting for third parties. What a great democracy we have!
Fuck this country I hope it burns.
You don’t understand how the electoral college works.
That kind of thinking is dumb as fuck
Your tired analysis fails to take into account the voting behavior of the ENTIRE POPULATION. You myopically focus on a prefabricated two choices available to each individual in the society, assuming the rest of the society is a GIVEN, and then it follows from that faulty premise that one of those two choices is strategic. But you fail to take into account that the entire society is free to vote for anyone. The fact that they can demonstrates the simple fact that IT’S A BAD IDEA TO VOTE FOR A BAD CANDIDATE.
Well, you go ahead and convince the ENTIRE POPULATION to vote third party and I will absolutely eat my words.
I’m just curious though, what do you plan to do differently from previous elections to achieve that aim? It’s not like this is a new argument, and it’s never worked before. I’ve jumped on that wagon myself in my more naive days, and the ENTIRE POPULATION wasn’t interested in playing along. What changed?
Do you understand it’s a cognitive bias that you expect a third party to fight to secure every single vote, but the two primary parties just get every other vote by default? Do you understand that that cognitive bias is the reason the population is voting for those two parties, out of the self-defeating mentality that no one else better can win? Do you understand that it’s the people who have actually clearly understood this problem that refuse to keep reinforcing the problem by voting for them? Your message is basically, “we’re all doing it wrong? fine, convince 330 million people that they’re all doing it wrong.” Are you planning on helping? Or are you just going to try to shut it down? All I can do is sit here and say that that millions of people are engaging in a demonstrably irrational behavior. The ten sane people in Nazi Germany couldn’t stop the genocide, because of the millions of people who had their own stupid fucking arguments for going with the flow.
Your bipartisan support is of a genocidal empire with victims in the tens to hundreds of millions. Are the two main parties literally identical? No. Are they both so incredibly evil that you shouldn’t vote for either? Yes. You want to call it a “wasted vote” not voting for a group of terrorists holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons, well, you’re an idiot.
it’s a cognitive bias
No, it’s game theory. If a small number of voters go third party, those voters get a worse outcome. If most voters go third party then (in theory) they all benefit. However, it’s not possible to know what everyone else will do, and past efforts to get enough people on board all at once have always failed. There is also no working theory on how to overcome the gap. Individuals are acting rationally, leading to an irrational outcome for the group. Unless you have a strategy to beat that, your done out of the gate.
Again, I point out that this isn’t new. This has been attempted over and over again with the same results every time. You aren’t proposing anything new.
That’s only the smallest part of the delusion though. What about political infrastructure? How do you get corporate media on board? Third parties rarely even get the presidential candidate on all the state ballots, nevermind getting enough candidates into state and federal legislatures to get things done.
Then there is the problem of corruption that third party proponents think that their parties are somehow immune to. Even if you could just elect a President who would have the ability to overrun a hostile legislature, that candidate will have zero track record prior to election. Maybe they get bought, or maybe they were a plant. How would you even know? If the Republicans and the Democrats can be corrupted, then the greens can be too.
Third party approaches are a high school level simplified fantasy solution, not something worthy of being taken seriously.
It is a carefully cherrypicked subset of the game theory. As I already pointed out. That is why it’s a cognitive bias, because you’re, again, myopically focusing on choice given to individuals with the PRESUMPTION that the rest of the population is already voting one way, which is NOT a guaranteed premise. You have an entire population of people MAKING this choice, MAKING these analyses, they are just doing it in an incomplete way. What happens when the population actually understands this fallacy and acts accordingly?
There are two paths long-term. You continue indefinitely with the self-defeating logic that never allows a third party to gain prominence or achieve power because the population collectively refuses to vote for them, or you teach the population to actually wield control of its own democracy rather than being dictated who they must vote for, by the corporate media, or the “lesser of two evils” mentality, or whatever else. It’s not that there is no obstacle to achieving the latter. It’s that it’s a moral imperative and MUST be achieved.
Then there is the problem of corruption
Yes, that is a fundamental problem with “representative democracy”. I would advocate even more extreme reforms to implement direct democracy. But what would you say to that? No doubt, more defeatist rhetoric that completely eliminates the possibility of constitutional reform - refusing to vote for candidates in Congress or state legislatures etc. that would actually vote for major constitutional reform, or especially not for any form of revolution. All you do is bitch and moan about every possible path to actual reform, then settle on the little 2% or 5% or whatever sliver of improvement that Democrats offer over Republicans, and then go on social media and gloat about your perceived moral superiority. This is the entire problem I’m complaining about. The population acting like YOU is what DESTROYS CHANGE. That IS the problem. You need to get up off your fucking asses and MAKE the change. You can sit here making arguments about why all change is impossible until you’re blue in the face, but you’re literally just proving my point, it is YOUR mentality across millions of people that MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE. IT’S A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.
It is a carefully cherrypicked subset of the game theory.
LOL wat? Referring to the part of game theory that applies to the question at hand isn’t cherry picking. Sorry.
the PRESUMPTION that the rest of the population is already voting one way, which is NOT a guaranteed premise.
No, it’s not. There is no guarantee required. The evidence, based on 50+ previous years of past elections, is that there will be no mass exodus from the two party system. At the very least you should be putting forward some theory of action for why the next time will be different but you don’t, because you can’t.
I’m not being “defeatist”, I’m saying that your particular plan leads to guaranteed defeat. You appear to have lost the ball. Getting a third party into power is not the goal, it’s a spectacularly ineffective path to the goal. There are other paths that are not guaranteed, but are the only paths that have ever achieved anything.
This this this…omg thank you.
This is game theory people not emotional tiddly winks.
deleted by creator
Politics is always about compromise, and compromise about issues that matter is always a punch in the gut.
When was the last time Republicans compromised leftward in any meaningful way?
The politicians? Top of my head, stimulus payments.
The voters? Trump’s suckers agree with whatever Trump says, so their entire political view is compromise, if not complete capitulation. Traditional Republicans compromised left by voting for a populist candidate, though they probably understood he was full of shit.
So Republicans moved to the left by… doing what Trump wanted?
God damn, just say you can’t think of anything because it’s clear you can’t.
Certain Republicans, yes. The Republican party just won the working class for the first time since Reagan.
That’s not a compromise leftward on the part of the Republican party.
Because Republicans don’t need to compromise. They sit there and let Democrats move toward them, secure in the knowledge that Democrats will be like “Look at this glorious bipartisan compromise!”
When only one side is compromising it’s called capitulation.
Why ask for examples if your just going to reject them on principle?
On it’s face, the idea that every Republican politician is right of every one of their voters on every issue is ridiculous. Republican voters, like all voters, compromise.
I agree with everything you wrote except having a problem with happenings in Gaza. Israel isn’t being aggressive enough
Well, that is disgusting and shows the gaping hole where your conscience is supposed to be.
It’s not just them. I feel the same way about every Church in America too and cheered when Canadians were burning them down and laughed when Notre Dame caught on fire.
Start from scratch with your idea of how morality works, because what you’re working with now is fucking awful.
This logic always leads to trump.
Funny how the fuck both parties ppl always end up supporting trump / gop
No, it doesn’t. It is literally a rejection of both Trump and Biden/Harris. And if you had bothered to read my message carefully you’d have noticed:
Also, Dems lost, what was it, 10x as many votes as people who voted third party?
That I explicitly pointed out that no, in fact, people voting third party did not even make up the difference Dems lost in votes (or lost the election by).
Then run somebody people want to vote for instead of someone who’s slightly less despicable than the opposition.
I hope you’re happy with the Trump administration you helped elect. If you end up in a camp, you can impress everyone with your moral purity
Oh look it’s a mask off liberal
oh look, it’s someone who uses liberal as a slur, much like the trump people you align with
Gotta love people so politically uninformed they’d unironically say that and think they’ve made a good point
Removed by mod
Triggered much?
If you end up in a camp, you can impress everyone with your moral purity
No one’s going to trust centrists with their escape plans.
You are the one here who’s concerned with imaginary moral purity. I am the one concerned with the actual consequences of this system. I will not take lessons in morality from somebody on the wrong side of a genocide.
lol
