you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 45 points 10 months ago (64 children)

I still don't understand how DJT was re-elected.

  • source
  • hideshow 64 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    People want evil, simple as that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    No they want bread and circus. But bread costed too much so here come the clowns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    MAGAts are not as evil as they are stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

    I have never really seen that postulate as practical in the real world. I prefer my own version (EDIT: addendum; failed to describe properly):

    Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by monetary profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    That explains the position of the higher-ups in the party, but the voter? The voter is not profit-driven, the voter is just fucking stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    And racist and hateful, and lastly they’re stupid and lazy. Go back to football you dumb cunts you’re fucking up the entire world

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    They are racist because they are too stupid to understand that immigrants are helping their economy much more than they are hurting it.

    They are hateful because they are too stupid. They hate what they can't comprehend (which is pretty much everything outside their small bubble).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It doesn't lead automatically to hateful, it however helps a lot. It's much easier to turn a stupid person into a hateful one than to do it with an educated person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    OK, sure whatever.

    The point is these voters aren’t just ignorant, they’re behaving in a way they were embarrassed about 10-15 years ago, and now they’re “out.” They can not and will not be given a pass that they’re just “not bright enough to be civil.” Fuck that to the moon

    They’re despicable awful hateful people who leverage their authority to hurt innocent people. Period

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Oh but I don't excuse them because they aren't bright, I'm just saying that they are ignorant awful assholes thanks to their stupidity. I wish them the worst and I'm hoping for an awful fall of their country so that the rest of the world can have some peace.

    I root for anything that could harm the magats as much as the next guy!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    If your choices and actions consistently hurt other people, and you refuse to listen when people point it out and change your ways, then you're evil. No matter how stupid you are.

    There are plenty of dumb and/or ignorant people who are kind and generous and who are not fucking bigots who make life hell for everyone around them.

    Edit, typo

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Because the Dems ran a lackluster campaign that promised more of the same, telling everyone that the economy is doing great while everyone is struggling. Orange man at least offered hope that things would change. People NEED hope. And with trust of the government at an all time low, with some serious money in media manipulation, this is what we get

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    ... but how it was not obvious to all that orange man was lying, is the bit that gets me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Because people are struggling and don't donate time to stay informed from reliable sources. They see the story that is pushed to them by social media algorithms... which have been bought

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    That didn’t help but the core issue there was Harris’s sharp pivot to the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah bringing out Cheney was a mistake but her policy platform never pivoted, just the PR stepped away from "identity politics" which all the dumbfuck both sidesers were (and still are) demanding from the Dems. Fuck the both sidesers and all the dipshits that use the term identity politics unironically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    American voters had a choice between utterly corrupt oligarchy enablers and entertaining utterly corrupt oligarchy enablers. Are you not entertained?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (29 children)

    Because American voters preferred to have this than to have a woman president. For the second time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (28 children)

    I don't think that's the correct take. Both times it was maintain status quo vs a disruptor. The status quo has been terrible for the majority of Americans so they were willing to take the risk on the disruptor. That's the same reason people split ticket voted for both Trump and AOC, they're both disruptors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Oh yeah the status quo of green energy, massive infrastructure investments, supporting Ukraine, EVs, PACT act, drug price controls, marijuana pardons, student debt relief, etc. How dare they!!!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    The pathetic support of Ukraine barely giving them enough to just hang in the fight. Drug prices for 4 drugs. Alleviating the symptom of student debt and ignoring the root problem. Ignoring housing affordability. Ignoring the growing wealth inequality. Add on to of that parading around Bush era conservatives... Yeah, the status quo that needs to be disrupted.

    It's not surprising that the DNC picking someone who dropped even before Iowa during the previous primaries was not a good strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Oh yeah supplying Ukraine with weapons and rallying all the allies to do the same is soooo much worse than Trump's "just surrender" policy. B-B-B both sides same!!!

    4 drugs? Just going off memory it was in the range of 10 or 12. So this is the point where I stop reading your lies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I'm not both siding anything. One side is significantly better as you have even shown. Biden only gave barely enough weapons at every stage of the war. He never gave enough for Ukraine to fight back, only enough to hold Russia off. Yes, far better than the just give up strategy, but not exactly something to be proud of. Which kind of sums up all of Biden's tenure.

    Lol, you're right it was 10 drugs. So successful a whole 10 drugs! When they announced that "success" the entire countries response was, "and?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    Total coincidence it was a woman versus a wildly unfit man both times that the women lost!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    Well, no. Both women were picked by the DNC and not by the voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    A fucking ham sandwich should've won against Trump. A man did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Biden only won because of how badly Trump fumbled his Covid response. Anyone would have won against Trump in that specific election. In 2016 and 2024 the political climate was very different and the DNC chose basically the only candidates that would lose to Trump. Bernie was/is a disruptor with a big supportive base that could have beat Trump. In 2024 the person who polled the worst against Trump was Biden, the second worst was Harris, yet "unnamed democrat" dominated the polls. Yes, be mad at the voters, but also be mad at the DNC who sacrificed everyone's future to push the status quo instead of embracing real change despite the voters clearly signaling that's what they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)

    That's not how that works. The voters picked Hillary in 16 to run with the party nomination. The voters stuck with the incumbent, and when they dropped out due to health reasons the secondary stood in as is standard practice. If you've got an issue with it you should have fucking registered Dem and voted in the primaries like intelligent responsible civically engaged citizens do. Instead of bitching on the internet about shit you clearly don't understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

    Because Clinton was a member of the fucking party and Bernie wasn't. Like holy shit, of course they didn't want someone who isn't actually part of the party to be the party nominee. What the fuck are you all smoking that everyone ignores the fact Bernie was never going to win the Democratic nomination because he wasn't in the Democratic party. It's not complicated shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

    He lost because he wasn't a Democrat, why would Democrats vote for someone not in their party? If you wanted Bernie y'all should have registered and voted in the primary. There was no rigging, the lawsuits were dismissed, Bernie just overwhelmingly lost to Hillary because registered democratic party members voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. Bernie never stood a chance and the process was pretty well the same as it always was but idiots like you have a child's understanding of political processes. Did you even know the DNC is straight up a private non public organization? Because that's how political parties work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    It's rigging in the same way that you're a genius, which is to say it isn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    What evidence? You can call it a ham sandwich but that won't make it fucking so. It wasn't rigging, it was standard dnc operating procedure. Lawsuits alleging rigging were dismissed as without cause because, and stay with me here, there wasn't rigging.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, Hillary won the old fashioned way: having the right endorsements, spending lots of money, and being a normal Democrat.

    If there was rigging it was in the 2020 Iowa Caucus. They wrecked the whole system to hand the win to a loser nobody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Yep.

    "The Democratic party endorses the Democratic party member for the Democratic party nominee instead of the guy that's not even part of our organization"

    Democratic party members: votes for Hillary.

    Idiots everywhere: "omg rigged"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    Cuomo still got tons endorsements despite running as an independent against a Democrat, so it's not as simple as just party loyalism. There's a core of the Democratic party which hates socialism and socialists, and would rather lose than let socialism win. That's not rigging, though. That's just the party leadership (and donors) steering the party.

    I fully expect a DSA candidate in 2028, so we'll see how the party reacts.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    We had decades of proof going back into the 80s that he was a cheap con man and a racist and a rapist. None of that was remotely new information, just a bunch of dumb fucks were like hurdur guy from apprentice.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)