7 ms·

Which is something many americans should've realized before re-electing a chaos monkey with a heart of stone.

nine_zeros 2y ago
It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care about anything as long as they get to own the other side. In many ways, Americana seem to be voting for the country to devolve into anarchy.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care about anything as long as they get to own the other side. I think that's overstating the case. There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil. They might or might not be empirically wrong in their beliefs, but don't mistake voting for enthusiasm. And "the majority" of voting Americans is technically 49.8%. With 63.9% turnout, that's only 31.8% of eligible voters.
  - tzs 2y ago
    > There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil. Even if both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt to about the same extent there is still large variation among individual politicians in both parties. P.J. O'Rourke, a well known conservative author and journalist, said it well in 2016 when he announced this: > I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary. > I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. > She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      People don't want "normal parameters" though. The normal parameters may have worked well for P.J. O'Rourke, a rich and famous dude, but they haven't been working well for normal people. For better or worse, they want to shake things up. People do want a kind of chaos agent. Just look at all of the love for Luigi Mangione. Is Mangione the right chaos agent? Rationally speaking, no. Is Trump? Rationally speaking, no. But the desire for fundamental change is palpable. Those who pearl-clutch the "norms" will continue to lose, and continue to be perplexed about why they lose.
      - bsder 2y ago
        > People do want a kind of chaos agent. Evidence is that they don't. They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. They wanted Trump--specifically.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. > If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. I'm primarily talking about the swing voters, who can swing elections only when they're close. Large groups of partisans also exist who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, no matter the candidate, so it doesn't really matter to them whether the candidate is a chaos agent or not. And of course the House of Representatives is heavily gerrymandered precisely to avoid close elections. Moreover, an individual member of Congress, 1 out of 100 in the Senate, 1 out of 535 in the House, doesn't have much power to change things. Their primary function is to support the President's agenda. That's why people focus more on the Presidential race, because the President makes a lot more of a difference than a member of Congress. In any case, though, Congress does tend to change hands according to how the public feels about the President, especially the House, the entirety of which is up for election every 2 years.
      - bagels 2y ago
        Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves.
  - thiht 2y ago
    > There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt Are you KIDDING? You’re talking about overstating, following with a huge understatement. Trump sells fucking bibles to schools. Trump launched a shitcoin right before his inauguration. Trump took 1 million dollars per CEO for his inauguration. The corruption scales are off the charts with Trump. You can’t talk about "the lesser of 2 evils" when one of them is a literal wannabe dictator / mafia boss / cult leader. Come on.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      Popular vote disagrees with this.
      - DangitBobby 2y ago
        Popular vote disagrees with the temperature at which water boils.
      - thiht 2y ago
        No it doesn’t. Popular vote just thinks these are good qualities for their president. One of the failures of democracy is letting people vote themselves into an autocracy, and forgetting that democracy must not become the tyranny of a majority.
        anabab 2y ago
        And apparently this is what Electoral College was supposed to prevent.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        No, that's not true at all. The EC was to prevent the interests of more populous states from governing the less populous states.
        Izkata 2y ago
- watwut 2y ago
  Every time the republican party does something we do not like, it is both sides are the same. However, when democrats or even progressives not related to democrats do something wrong, it is "liberals are bad and awful". There is no equivalent of Trump or JD Vance on the democratic side.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
[flagged]
watwut 2y ago
I think that many of them genuinely want the chaos and destruction. Unrelated to that, they see this as a rational money saving measure. If you look at intentional harm and destruction that saves nothing but only harms, Trump voters love it too.

It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care about anything as long as they get to own the other side. In many ways, Americana seem to be voting for the country to devolve into anarchy.

lapcat 2y ago
> It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care about anything as long as they get to own the other side. I think that's overstating the case. There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil. They might or might not be empirically wrong in their beliefs, but don't mistake voting for enthusiasm. And "the majority" of voting Americans is technically 49.8%. With 63.9% turnout, that's only 31.8% of eligible voters.
- tzs 2y ago
  > There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil. Even if both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt to about the same extent there is still large variation among individual politicians in both parties. P.J. O'Rourke, a well known conservative author and journalist, said it well in 2016 when he announced this: > I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary. > I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. > She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    People don't want "normal parameters" though. The normal parameters may have worked well for P.J. O'Rourke, a rich and famous dude, but they haven't been working well for normal people. For better or worse, they want to shake things up. People do want a kind of chaos agent. Just look at all of the love for Luigi Mangione. Is Mangione the right chaos agent? Rationally speaking, no. Is Trump? Rationally speaking, no. But the desire for fundamental change is palpable. Those who pearl-clutch the "norms" will continue to lose, and continue to be perplexed about why they lose.
    - bsder 2y ago
      > People do want a kind of chaos agent. Evidence is that they don't. They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. They wanted Trump--specifically.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over. > If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices. I'm primarily talking about the swing voters, who can swing elections only when they're close. Large groups of partisans also exist who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, no matter the candidate, so it doesn't really matter to them whether the candidate is a chaos agent or not. And of course the House of Representatives is heavily gerrymandered precisely to avoid close elections. Moreover, an individual member of Congress, 1 out of 100 in the Senate, 1 out of 535 in the House, doesn't have much power to change things. Their primary function is to support the President's agenda. That's why people focus more on the Presidential race, because the President makes a lot more of a difference than a member of Congress. In any case, though, Congress does tend to change hands according to how the public feels about the President, especially the House, the entirety of which is up for election every 2 years.
    - bagels 2y ago
      Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves.
- thiht 2y ago
  > There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt Are you KIDDING? You’re talking about overstating, following with a huge understatement. Trump sells fucking bibles to schools. Trump launched a shitcoin right before his inauguration. Trump took 1 million dollars per CEO for his inauguration. The corruption scales are off the charts with Trump. You can’t talk about "the lesser of 2 evils" when one of them is a literal wannabe dictator / mafia boss / cult leader. Come on.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Popular vote disagrees with this.
    - DangitBobby 2y ago
      Popular vote disagrees with the temperature at which water boils.
    - thiht 2y ago
      No it doesn’t. Popular vote just thinks these are good qualities for their president. One of the failures of democracy is letting people vote themselves into an autocracy, and forgetting that democracy must not become the tyranny of a majority.
      - anabab 2y ago
        And apparently this is what Electoral College was supposed to prevent.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        No, that's not true at all. The EC was to prevent the interests of more populous states from governing the less populous states.
        Izkata 2y ago
watwut 2y ago
Every time the republican party does something we do not like, it is both sides are the same. However, when democrats or even progressives not related to democrats do something wrong, it is "liberals are bad and awful". There is no equivalent of Trump or JD Vance on the democratic side.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

[flagged]

watwut 2y ago

I think that many of them genuinely want the chaos and destruction. Unrelated to that, they see this as a rational money saving measure. If you look at intentional harm and destruction that saves nothing but only harms, Trump voters love it too.