Reagan was part of a concerted effort by the mega rich to destroy anti-corruption efforts and put power in the hands of a unitary executive more akin to a dictator. Oligarchs love strong centralized power because it’s easier to corrupt.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/master-plan/id1723377799
You can draw a neo liberal shitstorm bumpy line from Regan to Trump.
Regan telling Iran not to release the hostages until after the ekection and if he won he’d sell then weapons (Iran-Contra) and he’s elected twice.
Carter had bad ratings because he wasnt a typical US President, he actually gave a fuck about people and place. Welfare queens indeed ffs
Ironically the welfare queen bullshit was based off one very specific person, a career conwoman who was suspected for murder at the time she was mentioned as a part of insurance fraud. The implications was that welfare fraud was severe and she was just the top most fraudster, meaning the scale went down from the 150K fraud she did with lesser amounts all the way down.
Truth is, there was just her. Welfare fraud was so rare and NEVER even CLOSE to her level that they were negligible. But it didn’t matter to them. Also the actual proven amount of fraud was 4k to 8k at the most. A fraction of the amount the government claimed. This would have been closer to 20 to 40k in today’s money. Not petty theft, but far from some grand world shattering scheme.
BTW the overt scrutiny of her welfare fraud was so severe that a major reason why many of the investigations regarding her role in that murder were dropped because it would take away media attention from her fraud and reveal just what a career criminal she was.
Every piece of great propaganda is built on a truth and a lie. Thanks for that.
Let’s not let Nixon off the hook here
Nixon may have been a criminal and an asshole, but he actually had some positive accomplishments - for example, he vastly improved diplomatic relations with China, established the Environmental Protection Agency, and supported lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.
[Note: contrary to social media standards, acknowledging someone’s legit accomplishments does not equal forgiving all their bad shit.]
Trump makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was also started under Nixon.
Or Roger Ailes
Well, it was already on the decline going into Reagan, even on that graph
A lot of environmental reform happened under Nixon
It’s so crazy to blame Reagan, while ignoring the vast industry that had already consumed the political infrastructure of dozens of states.
Carter was as much a creature of the O&G industry, when he supported our fascist allies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, plus the industry at home.
Nixon was even worse.
But this goes so far beyond who was president at any given moment. Like, if you’re going to blame anybody, blame the folks who figured out Plastics. After the 1980s, plastic exploded the demand for petroleum.
Nobody drills well to make plastic.
Vertically integrated industries don’t care. The massive yields in refining and selling plastic go right back into the capex budgets of refineries.
I’ve always said it and I’ll keep saying it because it is undeniably true.
Not a single one of America’s enemies on the face of the Earth could harm Americans more than the Republican party does.
In geopolitics it’s been well understood for some time that the only nation that could destroy the USA is the USA.
It’s billionaire money - that’s the heart of it all. Everything can be traced back to billionaire financing. The Republican Party was just the easiest vehicle to power to corrupt. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/master-plan/id1723377799
I guess only republicans. Okay.
It’s impossible for Republicans to do more harm than the Republicans.
Yes. It is hard for anyone to do more harm than themselves…
But it isn’t like they are unit 731, or the roman emperors.
Trumps style is very late-Roman emperor tbh
I wish. It would make more sense of what he is doing.
Yup
Yeah, solar panels are nice, but in spite of the different branding, “the path Carter set us on” was still neoliberalism. Carter was the beginning of the end of the unions and the postwar consensus around Keynesianism and progressive New Deal policies.
Carter was facing an economic problem known at the time as “stagflation,” where things were getting more expensive while wages remained stagnant. Keynesianism called for the government spending more when wages are low in order to stimulate the economy, and spending less only under good conditions, to balance the budget and save for a rainy day. It failed to predict stagflation because stagflation was caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But Carter chose to focus on inflation rather than stagnant wages, against the interests of unions and setting us on the path of neoliberalism.
The big difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan was much better at selling Americans on neoliberalism because he was willing to lie through his teeth about it. Carter’s message was that neoliberalism would mean tough times and sacrifices, but that it’s a chance to set aside crass materialism and focus on finding other forms of fulfillment, because what really matters is being a good person on an individual level. Reagan’s message was fuck all that, think of all the cheap plastic shit you’ll be able to buy, plus unions are commie shit anyway, and all that social responsibility crap is just helping black people and gays so fuck it and fuck them. But it was the same economic policy of neoliberalism under both. Americans preferred Reagan’s messaging so much that he got literally 10x the electoral votes as Carter in 1980.
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes. But the solution is not to somehow convince people to vote for the more honest neoliberal, it’s to provide an alternative to neoliberalism altogether.
Yet another revisionist wanting to blame Carter for the actions of the oil industry driving world policy. Carter was not the most brilliant but he did try to do the right thing. He was trying to show the world they didn’t need to be under the complete stranglehold of the oil barrons.
Iran was a fucking mess. But it wasn’t his “fault.” He made mistakes but he didn’t betray his country to get elected.
Reagan was a traitor and should have gone to prison for what he did with Iran.
But you keep talking about how everything would be the same if we had kept Carter’s policies.
I am sure you also think the same with Harris. I am sure we would be talking about how she “should have attacked Iran and that Iran wouldn’t be crazy enough to close the strait of Hormuz.” Or “her targeted air strikes would never have happened with Trump.”
We don’t know for sure what would have happened but the character of a person is enough to at least determine their intentions even if they make mistakes. There are mistakes and there are MISTAKES.
try to do the right thing.
the character of a person
determine their intentions
None of that is remotely relevant to the discussion. I am not St. Peter deciding whether or not Carter deserves to go to heaven. Regardless of what was going on in his mind, whether he was acting with good or bad intentions, the policy he enacted was neoliberalism and the effects of his policy were the effects of neoliberalism.
I am sure we would be talking about how she “should have attacked Iran and that Iran wouldn’t be crazy enough to close the strait of Hormuz.”
You are completely and utterly delusional. My opposition to US imperialism does not depend on which party is doing it. I have never, and will never, criticize a president for not being aggressive or interventionist enough. A completely baseless acusation based on nothing but your own desire to play the victim.
Iran was a fucking mess. But it wasn’t his “fault.”
Granting the shah asylum absolutely was his fault.
You don’t have to be St. Peter to simply understand intent.
on granting Asylum. IIRC Kissinger and Rockerfeller were pushing to get the shah medical treatment. Carter agreed and all hell broke loose.
On the imperialism topic. OP talks about how things would be different If Carter’s policies had stuck around. You said “nah ah Carter and Reagan are basically the same”
You are the same type of revisionist who would say whatever cherry-picked anecdotes of the past to put forward the idea that both parties are the same.
Neoliberalist or not there is no realistic alternative on the menu right now. So let’s at least try to be moral in what we do.
So what are some of Carter’s policies?
Are you arguing in bad faith, or just failing to see how you just failed to address any of this guys points?
So saying mumbo thing would have changed everything would be the same is a point?
What?
Uhhh what points?
Ah. You can’t even see the point. Got it.
Question: What do you think about the policies that Carter implemented to address stagflation of the 70s?
EDIT: to be clear, I’m not trying to argue one side or the other. I’m just trying to point out that your posts appear to be arguing in bad faith.
That’s not relevant to OP’s post.
OP was talking about how things would be better. This guy said they (Carter and Reagan) would be the same and cherry picked some data.
70s was a mix Stagflation, inflation and high unemployment meant hard choices. Carter made hard choices some very likely bad because he was too conservative.
Carter tried some questionable things and definitely shares some blame but he wasn’t a traitor and he sure isn’t the same as Reagan.
why Reagan beat Carter in 1980
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#Secret_deal_accusation
That wasn’t all of it. Carter got blamed for both Stagflation and the high interest rates his Fed used to get it under control. And of course the Iran Hostage Crisis and oil shortages. Then Reagan got all the credit for the economy the high interest rates helped save.
Of course, that was a factor, but not the only one.
Carter’s handling of Iran was poor even accounting for Reagan’s sabotage. The hostage crisis and corresponding breakdown of relations would never have occurred in the first place if Carter hadn’t granted the shah asylum, leading the Iranians to believe the US was plotting to install him in a coup exactly as it did before.
“stagflation,” where things were getting more expensive while wages remained stagnant
I think we just call that “normal” in America.
Today? Sure. But it wasn’t normal in the context of the post war, New Deal/Great Society era, which is why they coined a new term for it, historically.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I would recommend the podcast “Hell of Presidents,” which talks about this era in episode 12.
which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
The reason why Reagan beat Carter by such a significant margin was because reagan conspired with the Iranian revolutionaries to draw out the crisis until after the election so he could use it in his messaging against Carter.
It’s not even a conspiracy theory, it’s a historical event with a name. Iran Contra scandal, since you seem to have never heard of it…
Lol, you should probably get your facts straight before you start accusing me of not knowing history. The Iran Contra scandal was a separate thing that began 5 years after the 1980 election.
As I said to someone else, that was only one factor, and regardless, Carter could’ve avoided the whole hostage crisis if he hadn’t granted the shah asylum.
Ah, it seems I had my hostage crises mixed up. For some reason when I read “arms-for-hostages deal” in the past, I had assumed it was the hostages in Iran.
Also, the arrangements started in 1981, it just didn’t become public knowledge until 86. Your point stands about it not influencing the 1980 election, but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter. Especially since it was done specifically to fund an anti-socialist militia in Nicaragua.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter.
I’m not sure when or where exactly I made the claim that Reagan was no worse than Carter. Clearly, I must have said it, since so many people keep trying to argue against it to me, but I just can’t seem to find it in anything I actually wrote. Maybe you could point me to it?
What I do recall saying was that Carter’s policies were neoliberal and that neoliberalism is not the answer to our problems. But I must be misremembering.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
What you are thinking of is known as an “October Surprise.”
For me it was in response to this:
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close. And the main part I was countering was about ascribing the reason for the electoral outcome solely to their differing levels of honesty
Anyway, this is exactly what I was thinking of:
After the release of the hostages on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan’s inauguration, some charged that the Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until after Reagan was elected and inaugurated.[14] Gary Sick, member of the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Ford and Carter (before being relieved of his duties weeks into Reagan’s term),[21] made the accusation in a New York Times editorial[22] in the run-up to the 1992 election.
Abolhassan Banisadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated “that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Tehran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980”, asserting that “by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran’s ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages’ release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter’s re-election.”
Thank you. My bad for conflating it with Iran-Contra, though. I wasn’t alive at the time.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Comparing “Carter & Reagan” diffs to “Trump & Vance” diffs has got to be a disingenuous argument.
You didn’t really expect me to bite that obvious bait, did you?
he’s literally the problem almost every single time there’s a long standing problem. most of it traces ban to Ronny which is amazing considering he may have been brain dead the entire time.
he may have been brain dead the entire time
They say history repeats itself.
They say those that know history are cursed to watch those that don’t repeat it
And the only exceptions are when it’s really Nixon who’s the problem
Conservatism should be considered a intensive hate crime against humanity.
Conservatives are PURE EVIL. Every single one of them. They’ve fought against every civil right advancement in history. Under Reagan, they publicly celebrated the deaths of countless victims of AIDS and did everything in their power to maximise the number of victims. They attacked every researcher who tried to help.
Conservatives consider anyone who can experience empathy to be their enemy. They call empathy “woke” and want it to die. As long as they continue to live, conservatives will never stop oppressing and killing the normal people. They can’t. Because they are truly, deeply evil.
Every war and every genocide in human history has been caused by conservatives exclusively. Nothing good has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
Conservatives are the very definition of evil and must be completely redacted if we are to ever know peace.
Conservatism get more conservative the longer it exists because they huff their own propaganda. They don’t see anyone even remotely left of center as humans. So if you get slammed for “dehumanizing” them, remind the mental deficient that you are producing noises at, that the conservatives did it first, have a history of doing it, and will continue to do it. Conservatism is a carcinogenic weed and needs to be nipped in the bud whenever possible.
Also I will ALWAYS post this clip to remind people what needs to be done if the Conservatives ever start something (which they also have history of doing): https://youtu.be/eOcimzsviFA
Name checks out.
Every war and genocide has been done by people following a ideology blindly. Religion, communism, racism, conservative does not count toward all these ideologies so I wouldn’t say your message is true.
The difference between progressive and conservative is indeed empathy. But it stop short at who you think the ennemies are. If you are ready to ignore (or of course kill, emprison etc) all people that say they are from an ideology, you are not showing empathy.
The ideology is extrem. The people following it have different reason and degree of following the ideology. All of them aren’t extrem. Just like you have to explain to conservatives that not all x minorities are dangerous and need to be forcibly removed.
They were water heating panels. Not photovoltaic. They did not produce electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_at_the_White_House
Yes, that was the technology at the time. By creating a wedge issue like “solar panels are unsightly” or “wind farms kill birds”, politicians undermine good science and good economic ideas to please their donors.
every joules the heating panels used to heat water is 1 joules not needed to be burned with fossil fuels.
PV wasn’t economically feasible at smaller scale until relatively recently, but that doesn’t mean that preheating water for heating or domestic hot water is a waste of time. It can save considerable costs and fossil fuel consumption.
Thanks for the details. Still good and saving fossil fuels.
Yes but it was still a step in the right direction that could have led to more steps. Who is to say even Bush wouldn’t have looked at those every day before deciding “let’s do the new electric ones” or whatever.
I swear some people are just "100% perfect progress NOW or NOTHING, ITS SHIT WHY THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL TERRIBLE.
Who is to say even Bush wouldn’t have looked at those every day before deciding “let’s do the new electric ones” or whatever.
That’s not how anything works. Bush didn’t oppose green energy because he just never saw a solar panel, he opposed green energy because it went against the vested interests of the oil companies he represented.
That is the reason why we’re “terrible,” because we’re aware of the deeper systemic forces that are causing the problems, and of the fact that symbolic gestures don’t actually fix anything. We are terrible for the same reason your mechanic is terrible when he says that getting a car wash won’t actually fix your engine.
Except, it is the way it works to some extent.
People are influenced by things around them all the time.
If you see some outdated solar panels on your office roof and have the power to update them to be more useful, eventually it might happen.
It’s like shit like “rainbow capitalism”, that people bitch is “just corporations trying to make money”. Yeah, but it’s money off positive things and makes it all more visible to larger portions of the population.
And who knows, maybe in this hypothetical scenario Bush updates solar panels as a fake will of good, while still supporting oil. But then the parts of the larger population sees it, and says “Oh, the white house has solar, that’s nice, maybe I should try solar.”
In that case, perhaps you should simply send a heartfelt letter to President Trump explaining the benefits of solar power.
Which, had they been left in place, would have been replaced by PV panels when the tech became viable. And, there would have been another photo op.
Obviously, this was meant to illustrate the position of the administration on this subject. The same way removing them illustrates the Republican position.
Remember when Bush said he didn’t like broccoli? Like it or not, our politicians are influences, some would say the OG influences.
I mean, they were.
Bush put solar panels on the White House in 2002. Two solar thermal systems and a 9kW PV system. 167 panels in total.
Obama added even more in 2013.
It is still energy independence. To heat water, you can either use the sun for free or buy/extract petrochemicals
I’ve said it often enough that reagan was the worst. Even worst than the orange tumor. That backward criminal couldn’t exist without trash like reagan.
I’ve been saying the exact same thing for decades. Imagine where we’d be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago?
It’s all about boiling water anyway. Who cares how we boil it? Shouldn’t we boil it the cheapest, easiest way possible? The sun’s beating down, the wind is blowing, it’s easier to harvest that, than drilling holes a mile into the Earth.
Imagine where we’d be today if, during the oil crisis of the 70s, we started working towards reducing our dependency on oil with intention.
They all say it’d take 30 years. Ok, so if we started this endeavor after 9/11 we’d be in the home stretch.
If we started this in 1980…
Imagine all the bribes that get lost. Some now dead guy couldn’t afford his 3rd yacht, and their children wouldn’t even make the three comma club
Funny you say it’s all about boiling water when neither solar nor wind power generation requires boiling water. Actually, even the forms of solar that do involve water typically don’t boil it but just heat it to disperse that heat in the house. The only form that involves boiling water that I’m aware of is a large mirror array that reflects light over a large area towards one target, which could be a boiler.
Imagine where we’d be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago? I don’t want to break your imagination, but you “the US” are stuck in a loop. One step forward, two steps back.
Columbine shooting was 27years ago and nothing was done. Except a “Pray For” on social network. Don’t expect too much from your country.
It’s all about boiling water anyway. Who cares how we boil it?
Then you want nuclear power. When established, it’s cheap, reliable and scalable. And the only real solution to the growing demand.
Nuclears lifetime cost per KwH isn’t cheap, and that’s the main reason it hasn’t been mass implemented.
The upfront cost is simply too much for the amount of energy it produces.*
But solar and wind are the two cheapest sources of energy available, we need more energy stores to go fully solar and wind. We don’t really have enough mountains, to rely fully on hydro energy by pumping water up a hill with excess energy - But it’s a start, Sweden is minting money on this strategy.
Battery technology however seems to be evolving rapidly at the moment, there’s a serious hope we’ll end up with batteries as base loaders in two decades - One big issue, is how to ensure no need for a way larger energy grid capacity than necessary, but people are working on ways to introduce battery farms locally at wind and solar farms. So they’d pass the excess energy over there, rather than through the grid
*My information might be outdated, as I’m not aware if the SMRs if proven capable, are cheaper today than the calculations I’ve seen my mate do for a bachelor projects of economics just short of a decade ago
I dunno, America problems and corruptions were there on day one, your founding fathers were total monsters.
Dont think Carter’s policies could have changed your course that much.
The US founding fathers were less monstrous than most other rulers of the time. You have to give credit where credit is due. And yes, both Carter and Gore could have set the country on a fundamentally different course. That certainly wouldn’t have solved every problem, but shit would be a lot less fucked than it is today.
Lmao alright. The founding fathers wanted to break free from Britain so they didnt have to adhere to treaties with Native Americans. They were so much worse than so many other rulers at the time.
I really hate when people are like “If it doesn’t solve for 100% it’s not worth it”… moving the needle slowly over time has its benefits. Hell it’s what the GOP has been doing by ratcheting us to the right. Imagine if it had gone the other way.
Lmao. I guess if you ignore the slavery part.
I didn’t say they weren’t monsters. But look at the other rulers in power back then.
They were specifally bad.
No no see, Washington was not pro Palestine and constantly “Trans Rights” so he was 1000% Hitler like every American President, duuuh.
I mean, to be fair, we have no idea what Washington’s opinions on trans rights would have been. Louis XIV on the other hand…
No matter WHERE you are the US using less fossil fuels would’ve meant less climate change which means fewer disasters and climate issues everywhere, to say nothing for how it would’ve sped development of renewables more generally and had a knock-on effect worldwide.
America is undeniably a corrupt shithole - but virtue signaling against good policy to get a cheap punch in is childish and imbecilic.
It is to say that Carter did not have the powerful and efficient solar technology we have today and has not set the course from fossil to renewable but from abroad fossils to home fossils.
I mean, they fled Europe for religious freedom, doesn’t sound like anyone else was better so that’s kinda moot.
The Puritans actually left because they were religious hardliners that the church wouldn’t tolerate, iirc. But that was more than a century before the revolutionary war.
So maybe correct on freedom part, but wrong on the “not much better” part
If you’re removed!
The puritans didn’t flee Europe for religious freedom, they fled Europe for the “freedom” to establish a society where they could force everyone to follow their religion. They were also only a fraction of people who settled America, many more were just looking to get rich quick.
It was actually Cuck porn
incorrect. They fled Europe because they were such intolerant pieces of shit that nobody fucking wanted them, and the “religious freedom” they were chasing was the freedom to oppress other religions.
Lmao.
Tell me how you really feel, I know you want to.
It’s funny that you think feelings are historically relevant! Lmfao!
Ask every “progressive” running for POTUS in 28’ if they plan to put them back and then follow up if they will put that in writing on their platform. If they say yes, suggest they use tungsten carbide bolts to attach them.
This is good people right here
oh no Americans have been fucking America
please keep in mind who wanted Trump as their leader
About 30% of the country. The other 70% was either on the right side of history, or too apathetic to vote. Most Americans DIDN’T want him.
Those who didn’t bother to vote against him tacitly endorsed him
They made a choice to allow him to become president, even if they didn’t vote for him
I despise them as much as his supporters
ESPECIALLY the second time around
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I can’t despise them as much as active supporters… apathy is for sure the lesser of two evils there. But, yes… “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
“if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
I’ll take your Rush quote and raise you another.
“Indifference is the strongest force in the universe. It makes everything it touches meaningless. Love and hate don’t stand a chance against it.”
That being said, I’m not sure apathy is the lesser of two evils.
I could say indifference IS better than malice or willful ignorance… but, this could easily be disregarded as desire to ignore the greater concern (which I think you’re driving at) MLK’s expression of, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” Comes to mind. Sure, we’re getting philosophical… but I couldn’t refute that standing, without deploying willfull ignorance of my own.
I am, vehemently, clinging onto the notion that people in my country are ignorant and lazy, rather than fully malicious… I can stomach the former far easier.
clinging onto the notion that people in my country are ignorant and lazy, rather than fully malicious… I can stomach the former far easier.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the more I converse with conservatives in particular, but also people on this very platform that defend not voting in 2024, the more I’m starting to lean towards fully malicious. There are a lot of non-conservatives on this platform that appear to be accelerationists that want full collapse, which will only serve to end many, many innocent people’s lives.
Imagine calling voting for genocide the lesser evil, lmfao.
You should be skinned alive.
Yeah, agreed… my outlook is pretty bleak for my country, and by that I mean its people. Conservatives are truly a lost cause, in most situations. The exceptions being people too blinded by propaganda to see the harm they’re doing. I don’t see a lot of people “defending” non-voting, but that may be more anecdotal.
Do all your morals come from rock bands? You fuck 13 year olds too?
Dude, not everyone is as plugged in as you are. Some people don’t watch the news at all. Some people just go to work, come home, and do their own thing. Not everyone is terminally online.
Despising people for living their lives differently than you is just childish.
You don’t have to be terminally online to inform yourself of your choices for a few minutes every for years.
This is your reminder that civil participation shouldn’t be considered a right, but a privilege.
I’d say neither, it should be a duty
Voting literally is a “civic duty” for those who want democracy.
I think it’s a privilege to take part in the duty that is civil participation/ engagement.
Fair
deleted by creator
I’m lucky enough to live in a civilised country
We have compulsory voting, which is absolutely fantastic
It prevents the kind of stupidity that is 'Murica
If you live in a democracy it is YOUR DUTY to pay attention, inform youself, and vote intelligently to maintain that democracy that many, many people DIED to give you.
If you don’t, you’re a piece of trash.
This was a no brainer. A TRAITOR ran for office after attempting to violently end our democracy. Every piece of trash that didn’t show up to vote against that traitor is a piece of trash.
The United States is not and has never been a democracy for the poorest 90% of the population. It’s been scientifically studied, and the opinions of the bottom 90% have no bearing on the outcome of legislation that is actually passed. Democracy only exists for the wealthiest 10% of the US population.
Why are you calling people trash when 90% of them don’t live in a democracy at all?
Bullshit. Dead people have no bearing on how the living operate. The only duty people have is to fucking feed themselves and such.
Found the loser that doesn’t grasp how important democracy is or that people DIE for it so that others that come after them can benefit from it.
I’m here, aren’t I? Of course I’m way more plugged in and consume far more news than the average person. I vote, all the time. I encourage people I know and meet IRL to vote. Of course the US would be a better place if everyone were a bit more engaged. With each other, the world around them, politics, and the news.
But I get pissed off when people don’t seem to grasp that not everyone thinks like they do and they never will. When people are disgusted that others act differently than they do… I hope you can see why I would have a problem with that.
And when I find someone so willing to completely disappear up their own asshole about CIVIC DUTY and a bunch of people deaf for centuries… Just shut the fuck up already. Nobody cares except for the people that already think exactly like you do.
I remain firm that counting people that didn’t voten if they had the chance as not wanting Trump is wrong. They accepted what the majority wanted. So I say “yes the majority wanted Trump”. And that includes the popular vote.
I can agree that they did the wrong thing… but not voting isn’t what I’d call “wanting” It’s something more akin to “allowing” him to win. Which, isn’t any better. I am near about arguing semantics, I know.
Maybe saying it like that is a bit provocative but from my perspective it’s functionally the same. They didn’t care enough to make their voice heard so I feel like I can say that they wanted it that way. If they didn’t they should have voted.
I get it… and I earnestly agree with most of your sentiments. I’m probably just clinging to hope that people aren’t such disappointments as to WANT it, so much as “not care enough” to avoid it. (If that is even somehow better)
Even of the votes actually cast Trump hasn’t won by a majority.
He absolutely did. Trump got 77,302,580 popular votes vs 75,017,613 for Harris. Electoral it was 312 vs 226. So a majority wanted Trump.
He didn’t, he got 49.8% of the votes cast for president. The majority of votes were cast for others.
Not voting is the same as wanting with less steps
I SO wish that I had a valid argument against what you’re saying. But I don’t.
Not everyone who didn’t vote did it out of apathy. The Republican playbook includes disenfranchising as many people as possible, making it effectively impossible or extremely difficult to vote.
effectively impossible
But not LITERALLY impossible. I didn’t have to, thank the gods, but if I had to I would have gone REAL far out of my way to ensure I voted to keep a felon rapist pedophile traitor from dictating my future.
So do it anyway.
I vote blue in a sea of red, in a blue state. My House rep is actual Nazi Mary “Hitler Was Right” Miller. Fuck that bitch.
My vote is locally meaningless, but I vote anyway, because maybe if we stop being apathetic, there will be enough blues to make a difference.
And yes, Democrats are fucking garbage, but maybe if we get enough Democrats, we can start moving on to Ultraviolet or whatever goes beyond blue.
We already had enough Democrats to do that. But the Dem leadership decided that they’d rather let Trump win, then let the country move to the left.
I’m talking about cases where people are purged from voter registration rolls at the last minute without notice and then show up and can’t vote because they don’t have same-day registration. Or places where a district of 100,000 people have only one polling location and it isn’t staffed properly. Or where the polling location is miles away in a country famous for its lack of public transit, with many poor people unable to drive or arrange transportation. Or polling places in blue districts closing early even when people are still in line. I’m not saying not to vote, I’m just saying that it’s probably good to understand that some people are not voting not because apathy, as is commonly spouted on the Internet
It’s not. It’s ALLOWING with the exact amount of steps. Now, there is no argument to be had that this isn’t still a pathetic, apathetic, route to force us all down. Inaction is still an action. I am not defending those people, either.
And precisely because so many people can’t imagine any ‘solution’ beyond impotently signing off on new rulers and calling it a day, we are doomed to keep on with this whole farce. We told you this would happen a decade ago.
Yeah you can’t count the people that didn’t vote as “against Trump”.
If anything you can lump them in with “for Trump” because they couldn’t get off their pathetic asses to stop a felon rapist pedo traitor from becoming the most powerful American.
You could argue the former, yes, I’d concede that. Though, I couldn’t say also that makes them “for” tRump… just not opposed to him. Neither is right, mind you. This is a situation where I truly wish that “Did not vote” was the winning candidate.
The right side of history being genocide joe?
No. You don’t get to dismiss those that didn’t vote. It’s like everyone wants to ignore the Law of Large Numbers when it comes to elections. The cold, hard truth is that even if we had 100% turnout, Trump still would have won. You seem to think that every non-voter was a potential vote against Trump, without stopping to consider how many would be a vote FOR him.
The Law of Large Numbers means that yes, over 50% of the country wanted this. You don’t get to say it was only 30%, and treat the non-voters like a single bloc that would have voted differently. And I get it. It’s comforting to think that it’s only a third of the population that are full of hate and pants-shittingly stupid. But its well over half. American citizens are fucking idiots, and that’s not an unfair generalization to make.
The law of large numbers only applies to a random sampling. There is very clear indications that targeted disenfranchisement has been applied to the American electorate for decades. This indicates that if more people had voted, or been allowed to vote, that the results would have changed, or at least that’s the belief of those who set things up this way. Those who aren’t voting due to apathy may or may not be represented accurately by the votes cast, depending on the cause of their apathy.
citizens are fucking idiots
Ok.
that’s not an unfair generalization to make.
Sure and you’re not a bigot.
I mean sure, downvote me for pointing out the obvious. The Law of Large Numbers is an actual thing. It’s why we can get accurate poll results while only polling ~1000 people. And the more you get, the smaller the margin of error becomes. We had about 65% turnout last election. At that level, the margin of error is essentially zero. Trump won the popular vote. That last 35% wouldn’t have changed anything.
Our problem isn’t that we have a vocal minority terrorizing the majority. Its the majority that’s a problem.
The problem I have with you is your bigotry. Which is why I succinctly said that. You didn’t need to write so much, we all get it, you hate Americans.
My country spent decades pretending it was the greatest to ever exist while it’s citizens embraced ignorance and stupidity until we reached the point we’re at now. Over half the population are people who should never be trusted with a decision. Oh, they’re not evil, they’re just dangerously gullible idiots. And it’s the decisions those dangerously gullible idiots have made that might wind up killing us all.
So yes, I hate Americans in the same way someone who grows up in a racist family hates their own family. Because there are only two options when you grow up with these dumbasses: you either hate them, or become a dumbass yourself.
Nazis
