you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yeah..... Might not the onus of responsibility be upon those who continue to vote for people advocating for the existential threat over the person who is wanting to solve it?

Especially since the demand of the people willing to vote for the existential threat is to pick a candidate from the ilk of politicians who have been ignoring or collaborating with the existential threat support group this whole time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Sure, theoretically, but when you have a population where 35-40% want to watch the world burn or are too stupid to know the difference between that and "freedom", versus 60% of the population who want to see things improve, Are you really okay with that 60% splitting 30/30, leaving the other 35 to 40% winning the day?

    let's be real. we aren't going to magically convince that 30 to 35 percent the error of their ways.

    Thus, if we take what it looks like you're saying is the moral high ground, we by default let mendacity, racism, and cruelty win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Sure, theoretically, but when you have a population where 35-40% want to watch the world burn or are too stupid to know the difference between that and "freedom", versus 60% of the population who want to see things improve, Are you really okay with that 60% splitting 30/30, leaving the other 35 to 40% winning the day?

    Yeah....... So which 30% are you blaming on losing? Each one is making a choice, why are you only blaming the left instead of the centrist who are going to do half the stupid shit the 35-40% were planning to anyways?

  • source
  • parent