this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
462 points (84.6% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
1030 readers
907 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I were them I wouldn't exactly have a strong emotional desire to protect the people who voted for a fascist felon over them.
Sounds like terrible leadership
In a democracy giving people what they chose is good leadership.
We don't live in a democracy and good leadership is not telling your whole team that they can get fucked because half of them made a bad decision.
Biden won the 2020 primaries by a huge margin, Trump won his primary by an even bigger margin, and Biden lost to Trump in the 2024 general WITH POPULAR VOTE.
Thats democracy. People chose this.
77 Million Trump voters who showed up and 6.6 Million DNC voters who stayed home, they all chose this.
Interesting you left roughly 60 million voters out of your comment that did NOT choose this.
74,749,891
But whats it matter? The majority decides the presidency, which bills get called to vote, budgets, etc.
It's not enough if less than half of us aren't complete monsters when most of us are. For the next election people need to do better, support the DNC, volunteer.
The majority does not decide us elections. The electoral college does and you can win without a majority vote of the population. And treating 74 million people like it's their fault when they tried is the exact point I'm arguing. The dnc habitually forces their candidate on the base. Progressives don't want to be force fed a status quo establishment figurehead that won't change anything. The dnc should do better and they'd win by a landslide every time. Until then, it's gonna be close calls every time and when they win presidency they won't have enough in congress to pass shit
The popular vote went to Donald Trump, so the majority absolutely decided this US Election. The DNC selects its candidates via primary election, of which candidates like Bernie Sanders consistently lost.
Who won the popular vote in 2016?
I'd discuss the primaries of the past handful of elections with you if you were arguing in good faith, but you are not.
The popular vote was won by Hillary Clinton in 2016, and a partisan stance exists for removing the Electoral College system called "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". If enough states joined the compact it would forever remain a thing of the past.
I don't think "America reelected this felon who got in unfairly in 2016 and wrecked the place" is as good a defence of voters as you think it is.
Absolutely false. People are fucking morons that do not know what they need. People are good at identifying the problems that face them, experts are good at finding solutions. Good leadership in a democracy is finding experts and supporting them to find solutions for the problems constituents face.
Okay so you're unironically arguing against actual democracy and I don't feel the need to say anything other than that to you.
Of course, good managers pick sides and help push the other one off a cliff.
Do your emotional desires dictate your politics? Or do you have an ethical system that does that? If so, why didn't your ethical system preclude you from writing that comment?
Emotions dictate the politics of the OP and artist, clearly.
Sounds like "whataboutism"/"tu quoque" to me.
See if it werent the primary topic being discussed here that would be fair like if I said "whatabout Trump's emotions!" then it would work.
In fact, you asking about my politics was more whataboutism than my statement.
Scrolling back up, not sure I read your first comment correctly, but it does still apply. A politician is charged with doing the right thing (as if they ever actually do), not following their emotional desires. It's unclear if you meant "the people who voted for a fascist felon" in terms of the public at large or just the Trump voters, though that applies either way (I know, we don't like being merciful to bad people). I do think encouraging retribution, at the expense of the wellbeing of a society, is actively harmful, I don't think that's ethical, which is what I was pointing out about your comment, not trying to discredit your argument by saying you're being hypocritical, which is what "tu quoque"/"whataboutism" would actually be. Now, you responding to my comment saying, "well OP/the artist have their politics dictated by emotion", that is a perfect example of whataboutism, because instead of acknowledging or even examining the criticism, you're just saying the same thing is true about someone else. So no, what I said was not more "whataboutism" then your statement.
I really don't like this thing on social media where somebody will make a completely incorrect argument and then it's like there's an expectation placed on you to go back and point out all the problems with what they said. Can we literally get like, just the basic mechanics of logic out of the way? Having to spend time establishing this shit is insane.