“Vote for my shitty policies or the other guy will have shittier policies” is not a platform.

The point of a democratic republic is that elected officials enact the policies those who elect them want. If you don’t offer to enact those policies you don’t get elected.

Yes, non-voters were stupid to not vote for the lesser evil, but the Harris campaign violated the very basis of democracy and thought they could simply use Trump to bully people into voting for them.

Imagine a system where a fascist Boogeyman is held up every election and people reliably vote against them without regard for who they vote for. The other party could put up whatever shitty candidate they wanted whether they espouse the views of the population or not.

Not only is that not at all a fucking democracy, it was the documented strategy of the Democratic party! Except it doesn’t fucking work, which they should have learned in 2016.

The Biden campaign offered something, notably student loan forgiveness, but both Clinton and Harris’s campaigns relied on the dumbfuck Pied Piper strategy that they would offer nothing to the voters other than being not-Trump.

That’s a dumb fucking strategy because there are fewer people that will vote Democrat as the lesser evil than will vote Republican just because Republican. They have to court people with policies they actually want.

And the absolute crazy thing is they tried this in 2016 and it failed, yet somehow had the balls to try again when it mattered more.

They didn’t lead to the apathy - they pointed out the existing apathy would cost Dems the election. It’s like saying the person who said you need to wear a seatbelt caused the wreck.

You’re exactly right about people being excited for Trump and lukewarm on Harris, but that’s entirely on the Democrats for picking the platform and strategy that lost to Trump in 2016.

Harris had a notable and surprising lead when they announced Biden was out - then they changed nothing else. People didn’t just not like the candidate, they didn’t like the policies. They only changed the candidate and thought Trump was a big enough cudgel to bully people into voting even though that demonstrably doesn’t work.

It’s not even close to half. Republicans are a quarter to a third of the country.

It’s voter suppression and Democrats being the biggest possible fuckups they could be at every fucking opportunity.

Must have dropped out of strawman school…

You’re definitely on the right track.

The only actual job of the police is to file crime reports.

They do not prevent crime. Protect innocents. Make people show up for court etc. They have no obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect someone being hurt, even if they’re standing right there and could stop it.

Anything in the justice system that you value is either done by someone else, or actually isn’t done at all.

Tell that to Volkswagen, BMW, Messerschmitt, Audi, Deutsche Bank… And all these guys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

I was going to sarcastically ask “ever ever?” but suspect your statement might just be literally true…

And abortion being legal doesn’t mean shit for a Catholic.

No one’s up in arms because non-Catholics eat meat during lent or don’t believe in transubstantiation.

Their religious belief has no place in government. If they don’t want to do it, then don’t.

The concept of the tragedy of the commons existed centuries before Hardin. He just uses that concept to justify an unsound conclusion and the concept would exist whether he wrote his paper or not.

Every time someone references it, they’re referencing that concept that really does affect communal resources, and probably have no idea what argument Hardin ever made based on it.

The beginning of the paper lays out the idea very well and I use it to teach people to treat shared resources respectfully, but tell them not to bother reading the conclusion.

Found the ancient Mesopotamian…

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2016+Clinton+pied+Piper+strategy

Would Jesus at least be able fashion a scourge before-hand?

Yeah. I get that we have to vote for her. But she’s just using Trump’s fascism as a cudgel against voters to push her own shitty policies.

If she genuinely thought the election was life or death she would compromise on Israel, rather than saying we’re the ones that have to keep compromising.

I get that it’s stupid not to vote or vote for Trump because she won’t back off on genocide - but everyone calling that out needs to call out that Kamala could fix that entirely by just deciding to be on the right side of history.

This would be a slam dunk election if they’d stop supporting genocide.

And THAT’S how I got into Juilliard!

Are there rules for that in baseball? If the ball breaks up I assume there’s no play and they do over.

Harris chose to do something immoral because “it was the law”, or it benefited her, or whatever - and you can expect her to continue doing that.

You still have to vote for her, but you also have to be realistic about who you’re actually voting for.

Republicans are the party who holds their candidates up without criticism - and Dems put up Kamala now exactly because Democrats were criticizing Biden - and even though she’s one of the worst candidates they’ve put up in years, she’s still far more electable than Biden.

So yes. You need to both vote for and criticize Harris. It’s the least immoral choice.

Canada Goose

I remember it was that he felt his managers should have told him he was an idiot more than they misinformed him. He was upset about what they didn’t say, not what they said.

“mad at the machine for not working or you are begging it to work”

Inclusive or