top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 110 points 4 months ago (2 children)

These people provide public justification to drop the peaceful part of peaceful protest. They force it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 36 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    One less candidate to have to consider in 2028..

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

    Her presidential ambitions were doomed the moment this photo was published. I think she has just given up and doesn’t care what people think anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago

    "Democracy"

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Who is she saying this to? Hot mic means this was at a location that had a purpose, like a fundraiser or conference. Why is there only a tweet with NO CONTEXT?! We know people don't show up to vote so there won't be backlash. The question is if the person she was talking to is someone that would look somewhere else.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 27 points 4 months ago (7 children)
  • [+] 12 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Wanted a source, myself, so I went digging. Found a video here (sorry to have to link to X, even if via xcancel, but it's what I've got).

    Obviously this is a fairly brief snippet, but with the context of this being her talking to the CEO of Oracle at a data center groundbreaking event, it's hard to imagine this not being exactly what it looks like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I feel weirdly like the very noisy audio quality makes this video less likely to be AI, because that's not really the sort of thing it's going to have been trained for, but I definitely respect your reservations here. Would like to see more reliable info about this as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Like Clinton said, "You need both a public and a private position" to navigate political negotiations and deal-making. Talk populous to the public and do it regardless of public demand is the modus operandi

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Her own words are not credible? Someone defending a fascist is a fascist and is no friend of mine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You are confusing leftists with Democrats. WE work with reason, Democrats work with emotion and cult like devotion to their shade of fascism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Ever wonder why you feel powerless as a citizen? This is why.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    This is only happening because Leftists didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    One-liners are the absolute worst kind of political speech. I can't tell if I agree with you or not. Clarify and defend your position*.

    Was Clinton a better candidate in 2008 than Obama? Would her winning the primary have led Obama to run against trump in 2016/2020 instead, resulting in multiple terms of Democratic leadership, undermining capitalism? Or would she have lost and we'd have had our republican asshattery years earlier resulting in left-er leadership as the pendulum swung when this AI bullshit arrived.

    My point is: if your only contribution is a single statement like "this is their fault", just shut up. Trite comments don't inform.

    *I'm actually pretty serious here. I'm new to "Left" and would have called myself a Liberal a few years ago on this forum. Tell me why this is my fault.

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

    Was Clinton a better candidate in 2008 than Obama?

    Demonstrably not, given that she handed him dozens of Midwestern states virtually uncontested.

    But that's just how Obama stole the election. He villainously campaigned in Red States as though their primary voters actually mattered.

    My point is: if your only contribution is a single statement like “this is their fault”, just shut up. Trite comments don’t inform.

    So much of political analysis seems to boil down to "you can only win if you do exactly what I say and never disagree with me in public".

    Hillary learned hard on that pitch in 2008 and again in 2016. Biden and Harris adopted it in 2020 and 2024.

    And every time the message alienated people, it's their fault when the Dem loses.

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

    Strangely enough, I'm still not sure how you feel. I've upvoted you because I think this 'adds to the conversation' even if I eventually disagree with you.

    Demonstrably not...

    Your line was "... because Leftists didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008".

    So you would or would not have preferred Clinton in the 2008 general election? Over what? I'm serious. I wasn't paying attention at that time to know how she compared to Obama. By the time I was really watching, she was leagues better than trump, but back in 2008, I was a simple straight-ticket blue voter -- doing my duty, punching my card every two years and feeling like I was helping.

    (again my point is aimed at inform. Sell me on your point of view. I don't think we're enemies and there is a silent majority who agree on the end goal but maybe not the path.)

    How is today's situation on the shoulders of people who didn't vote for Hillary in 2008's Primary?

    I know people who have succumbed to not good enough, and let some terrible people win. This is perhaps more pronounced locally, if you start looking, where a handful of votes is the difference between a socialist or liberal winning over a conservative or fascist.

    I think this is only happening because capital does what capital does, and it tries to own the narrative. Berating people because the self-appointed leadership failed them is totally not a thing this community is trying to do. right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    So you would or would not have preferred Clinton in the 2008 general election?

    Personally? I think it would have been a push. Possible for Hillary to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in '08 like she did in '16. But I think Dems still end up making all the same mistakes in '09/'10 and set themselves up for a GOP takeover of all those state and local offices two years later. These problems date back to the 1980s and the leadership has only doubled-down on them over the last forty years.

    Obama had a unique opportunity to reinvent the party in 2009 and... didn't. Hillary was a creature of the party and definitely wouldn't have done any better. And the need to blame people outside the party for the miserable performance of leadership inside the party means we get Trumpism a little sooner (maybe even War with Iran a bit sooner).

    I know people who have succumbed to not good enough, and let some terrible people win.

    The notion that the naysayers are to blame for the Democratic Party's lackluster performance is the reason the Democrats keep losing. They only ever know how to blame everyone else. Obama broke the trend in '08 (and kinda-sorta in '12) by rallying such a supermassive majority of support that the "Blame the Greens for our Failures!" caucus got drowned out by people applauding our first black president.

    But over the long term, when corporate Dems pick candidates, what we really end up seeing is indie voters getting seduced by liberal-sounding Republicans not green candidates. Trump running as an anti-war candidate, Kasich and Bush Jr and Arnold Schwartzenagger running as "compassionate conservatives", Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis running as "tough on corruption" prosecutors - they all play against the weaknesses of the Democratic Party.

    Blaming The Left because you scared off all the unaligned voters is great for rallying BlueMAGA Democrats, but miserable for actually winning elections.

    I think this is only happening because capital does what capital does

    Capital plays both sides expertly. It's very funny to see someone as dumb and racist as Elon Musk run circles around a guy supposedly as educated and savvy as Barack Obama, and yet that's exactly what happened in 2009. Same with Zuckerberg and Thiel and Bezos. They all suck Democrats into their orbit, milk them for every penny they're worth, and then toss them aside for the next GOP hotness. Hell, even Sam Bankrupt Fraud got the wool over Schumer and Gillibrand multiple times.

    The only thing more stunning that Dem leaders who get hoodwinked like this are Dem voters who keep reelecting them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    So I think we're aligned... or at least I'm coming to your side in my Liberal >> Left journey.

    A commenter above said you left off the /s and that it was sometimes hard to tell. I went in defending Left from someone who thought that Hillary would have been significantly different from/better than Obama.

    I'm assuming with "I think it would have been a push," that you were not actually blaming Left (those here, not colloquial US democratic voters in aggregate) for the current problems, but maybe I'm still missing something.

    I wrote up further discussion, but it took me too long to collect my thoughts and I think I missed my chance to have a reasonable window.

    I did want to still follow up and say thanks for having this conversation with me, and for going into detail.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Luigi is no longer enough, we need a second coming of Killdozer.

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 4 months ago

    Where are all those people that love commenting "bOtH SiDeS"?

    This is the shit we're talking about. They both corrupt and evil af.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    The entire system needs to be burned to the ground and built from scratch.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    How do we stop it from happening again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago* (14 children)

    That's the easy part. Remove corporate money from politics and severely punish any hint of corruption before it spreads.

    It needs to be made very very clear that these assholes represent their constituents, not big business. Any district has the absolute authority to recall their representative at any point; no argument, no appeal. If they fight the recall, it's treason and is punished as such.

    The system isn't without redemption. We're only here because they forgot that they work for US. And we lost the wherewithal to make them remember that. Three...maybe four heads roll (literally), and they'll remember how politics is supposed to work for the people.

    For example: The moment Ted Cruz ran to Mexico and left his state in freezing temperatures, his own constituents should have dragged him from his mansion by his toenails and strung him up. If they did, you think the next person would try that shit? If we let them get away with it, they'll keep doing it. Nip it in the bud right from the start. Get out of line and we've got no problem fucking your shit up.

    Politicians need to be very afraid of their constituents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Remove corporate money from politics and severely punish any hint of corruption before it spreads.

    With capitalism? You're asking for capitalism to reign again.

    Politicians need to be very afraid of their constituents.

    I am not so sure you know what that entails.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    the system isn't without redemption

    But how many need to die to redeem such a basically shitty anti-democratic system in the first place? Is it worth it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Call me a pessimist, but at this point we're not getting out of this without a fair amount of death anyway one way or the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    So we must spend those deaths redeeming the system. Yes. A better world is a nice thought, but not really possible. We must have anew red terror to elect kamala harris.

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

    To make a steelman argument: frequently proposed reforms include eliminating the spoiler effect, which would force politicians to compete for best instead of second worst.

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

    You are a traitor to the cause of harris-biden '28! OFF WITH THEIR HEAD

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm hardly one to fall into the 'both sides' argument because, let's face it, one side is clearly far worse than the other. And hell, as your northern neighbour, I'm frankly more interested in the the fact that I see the same kind of crap happening up here, but...

    When one of the supposed good ones on the so-called better side get's caught on mic saying that they're "used to hearing their people say fuck no, and doing it anyway", it's clear that modern politicians in general (In both the US, Canada, UK, etc... I dare say everywhere, have gotten cocky and forgotten who they work for.

    And we're past the point where a little bit of the ol' ultra-violence is becoming necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    As long as private ownership of the economy is allowed, there will be money in politics. The actual permanent solution is to communalize the economy so that it benefits everyone, instead of just a few rich people who did nothing to deserve it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    To be honest, I actually disagree with that.

    Private ownership isn't the problem. CORPORATE ownership is.

    When a company is no longer owned by humans and is instead owned by shareholders (who themselves are usually non-human hedgefunds, LLC's, financial firms, etc...), and being run "Boards of Directors"; fat-cats who have no idea what real life is like and are entirely beholden to a stock price.

    When humanity is removed so far from the capitalist equation as they are in corporations, we've lost the plot of what capitalism was supposed to be in the first place; human's buying and selling from other human's.

    I usually like to use, as an example, my best and my worst jobs. I worked for a locally owned furniture store. The owner was awesome. He built the business ground up with his family. And he was a success. He paid me fairly, gave good benefits, treated me like family. Would just randomly pass out raises if things were good because he believed in sharing success with the people that helped him achieve it.

    The very reason he could do this is because he wasn't beholden to a stock price, or a Board of Directors, whose only legal mandate is to increase profit year over year. He was successful, in the multi-millionaire range. Could he have been even MORE successful (monetarily) if he didn't give raises, or benefits, or paid vacations? Sure he could have. But that's not what it was about.

    Compare that to my worst job, working for a Telecom in Canada (frontline store manager, nothing major) and being told that no one was getting raises that year because the "company didn't make any money", even though I knew damn well that the company make 6 billion dollars. But the point was that, because at the beginning of the year, analysts forecast the company to make 7 billion, and because they didn't make it, the stock price was going to take a hit, and holding back raises would at least mitigate that hit a little big. (This...by the way...is the moment that fully radicalized me against corporations).

    We need more of the first example and the second is the part of the system that needs to be burned to the fucking ground with extreme prejudice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Capitalism is not synonymous with markets. Humans have exchanged commodities with other humans long before capitalism began, and will do so for long after capitalism ends. Capitalism is literally just a specific mode of production where the means of production are owned by individuals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    They all do as the AIPAC Uniparty demands and keep us infighting while the pedophile class enslaves all of humanity

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Um, aktuly it's called Harm Reduction, sweetie. 👻

    You vote for the most liberal candidate on the ballot, and then you blame Far Left Russian-aligned non-voting communists for anything bad that happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Liberals of all stripes are not the good guys.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago

    And some people get surprised when people start becoming violent against these types

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    I'd love to know the context here because I could see this being her saying they're used to these company men saying they would never do xyz then just doing it anyway.

    Like there's nothing here that's useful for anything more than rage bait.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    The context is Democrats don't care for the working class anymore than Republicans do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Well they seem to be the better option between the two, I'd rather have the Dem oligarchy than the GOP one.

    Just for the record, I think we should literally round up the billionaires and redistribute their wealth by force after we execute them for destroying our society and world ... But also yeah voting D is better.

    Also that's not context.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago*

    Is that a bingo? irl

  • source
  • [+] 21 points 4 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I feel like you dropped the /s which might be confusing to the average reader who can't see obvious sarcasm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You need to vote blue or else you won't have any choices later!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    You can talk about this moment in the primaries. But also, not too loudly or polarizing because we don't want the Republicans to use the same points in the general election. And honestly, we should do it mostly in private

    Not real things that anyone ever says or does but ok

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Shit like this is disillusioning people from voting, even when their life is depending on it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 10 points 4 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    I imagine the analogy is more nuanced than that. It is more like politicians promising their constituents a mutually respectful relation based on consent, then drugging them so that they can rape their constituents without them noticing while the billionaires watch and jerk off to that.

    It goes without saying that this is just an analogy and the psychological effects of what is being done here is no where near a rape but we are all adults here and can infer that I think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    psychological effects of what is being done here is no where near a rape

    I strongly disagree with that. It's extremely harmful in a myriad of ways to everyone and any ecology anywhere nearby. Even if the individual detriments to ones life are not equal to a rape (which I am again I doubt of, not that I think rape is harmless but because this shit is so fucking heinous), the cumulative effects on the millions of people is indeed worse than rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    No, it's called being a dishonest politician. Have a little respect for rape victims by not using the trauma they went through as a loose conversational metaphor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Yes, and you understand what a patronizing tone is, correct?

    I've known women who were raped, and bringing it into the conversation to sound cool is lazy social media slop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    So much verbiage and analysis for objecting to calling political lies "rape". I'm not gonna argue this - I guess just consult a dictionary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Even pure scientific discovery is an aggressive, penetrative act... There is always some proof that scientists were there, making their discoveries. Discovery is always a rape of the natural world. Always.

    To call the unimpeded development of AI data centers anything other than the rape of the natural world is confusing to me. It's a very apt description, I think, and what Gretchen has admitted to is that she's willing to rape the world. Explicitly against the wishes of the people.

    If your position is that the rampant creation of data centers and their environmental impact is not the rape of the natural world, then I can't really help you. We fundamentally disagree there.

    Edit: That's Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, by the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    To call the unimpeded development of AI data centers anything other than the rape of the natural world is confusing to me.

    Yes, and if the comment I replied to, which started this side conversation, had contained such explicit context I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But in fact it was a top-level comment that simply said, "That’s called being a rapist everybody," leaving the meaning of "that" up to the reader. I took it to mean a state governor getting caught callously disregarding the will of her public. You might be preoccupied with AI and datacenters, but I think politicians not doing their jobs is a much larger issue - because if we really had representative government the public would be able to stop datacenters when they wanted to, not to mention handling other important issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Could we get a source on the hot mic? Need so I can send to some people.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Vote blue no matter who!

    🤪

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Didn't this woman survive one assassination attempt already?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

    Blue no matter who!!! 🤡🤡🤡

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Yes blue is bad. But red is far fucking worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Glad Gretchen Whitmer can count on your support!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Again she's better than the alternative that ran against her if I lived in Michigan I certainly would have voted for her. If you can give me a better choice then please do. If you can't give me a better choice then shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    If people keep voting for any blue candidate, then there's no incentive for the Democrats to run people that will ever actually make a positive change, and things just keep sliding to the right and getting worse. I know it feels like now isn't the time to take that kind of risk, but people have been literally saying that for about 40 years now. It's a big part of why things are as bad as they are now. If people stood up to it like I was saying 20 years ago, we would never have had Trump. And because people aren't standing up to it even now, we'll probably have something worse within the next decade.

    So, not voting for her is the better choice in the same way that putting disinfectant on your wound is a better choice than letting it fester, even though at first it stings a lot worse than just leaving it alone. I mean imagine saying "ahhh but this cut hurts so bad, now is the LAST time that I can afford to make it feel any worse!"...and then tomorrow you say "oh god it hurts worse now, now is REALLY not the time to make it hurt worse. I need to wait for a better opportunity at some point later...."

    The best choices are rarely found by thinking only one step ahead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    So if not voting for her is the best choice who do you suggest that we vote for? Because not voting is the worst choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Thank you for responding politely, it is very appreciated.

    Ideally, you would vote for someone that you actually like and want to have represent you. Not someone perfect of course, but someone who doesn't do outright repulsive and two-faced evil things like this lady was caught doing. But if no such person exists, then I think that not voting at all really is the best option, for the reasoning stated above. I don't want to misrepresent my standards to the political entities, because then I'm giving them an excuse not to meet my (what should be low) standards.

    I don't really know about what's going on in Michigan, so I looked into it to tell you what I'd do.

    It turns out that this horrible Gretchen person is term limited anyways. Probably why she's being so careless. There are two Democrats in the running it looks like. One being a huge asshole sheriff who wants to attract the AI industry by building data centers. and the other being Jocelyn Benson who wants to protect reproductive rights and has endorsements from local labor groups....buuuut she's married to a VP of a real estate company that wants to build a data center in Michigan... 🤔 although he did say he'd recuse himself from the projects if she was elected.

    So, for example, I would never vote for the AI Sheriff, even if he was the only candidate. Same for Gretchen, if it were possible for her to run. Because I want to do my part to lift the bar higher than that. As for the other candidate I'd have to look a little deeper to say for sure, but the scandals I'm seeing tend to be in a more plausible deniability realm, and I don't see anything disagreeable in her policies themselves. So tentatively would vote for her.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Thanks for the level headed and quantifiable reasoning. I agree the argument you're putting forth is the most compelling one and the one that most makes me question my own line of reasoning as well. Of course, like you say: it's always possible that something way down the line is going to turn out to make it all worth it, but because we can't see perfectly into the future and the world is really chaotic and hard to predict. I think that is basically the strongest argument out there for just picking the immediate best option.

    On the other hand, I'm not exactly saying that we need to look all the way down the tree, maybe just like three or four steps ahead, instead of literally just one. Of course, the predictability goes down with each successive step. But I think we can at least think two election cycles ahead without losing too much precision. Especially in cases where the person running is really reprehensible to us, that helps even out the trade-off too, because in the same way that we have assured benefits from their victory, we have assured drawbacks. In that sense your argument cuts both ways a little. (But mostly against me, I won't deny) I think a lot of the disagreements on strategy here come down to people's personal values for these variables: the predictability, the confirmed costs/payoffs, the potential costs/payoffs. Which are pretty hard to be objective about.

    I think the complexity of it that I just talked about would put things in your favor too, if not for the evidence (in my opinion) that the greedy strategy is exactly what has produced our poor historical results. So this is my biggest question for you because you said history isn't on my side. But to me, it seems like we have plenty of record of the same sort of "wait til the next election to be picky, this time we have to win, the stakes are too high!" rhetoric going back decades. And things are undeniably getting worse. So from my perspective, we have already been trying the greedy algorithm strategy for the last 40 years. For me that makes me feel like I have not only a theoretical explanation for why that would make things worse, but also historical evidence of it actually doing so. History seems super on my side to me.

    I gel with your reasoning style so I'm interested to hear what you think I'm getting wrong about that perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Decades of this mindless thinking has taught Democrats that they can do anything they want without consequence because voters will keep coming back. If you allow a little evil the next evil can be slightly larger. Compounded over 50 years we have our current political climate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    6 comments in c/usa view that post