this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
25 points (90.3% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

889 readers
820 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
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All you're saying is your entirely ignorant of the political outcomes of the last century, you aren't smart or enlighten because you think 'both sides'. If Hillary won we wouldn't being dealing with a stuffed supreme court as well many other courts all over the country that have blatantly done all they can to give every action of Republicans the appearance of legality. We wouldn't have lost over 1mil people in a pandemic. We wouldn't be having courts openly consider resetting our entire legal system to the 1770s including full blown racist laws, we wouldn't be fighting for our basic rights. The level to which you're completely wrong is HIGH.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think "both sides". I think they are the same side. That of establishment, or of elites, or of "the rich" if you like that rhetoric.

We wouldn’t be having courts openly consider resetting our entire legal system to the 1770s including full blown racist laws, we wouldn’t be fighting for our basic rights. The level to which you’re completely wrong is HIGH.

Yes, threatening you with "authoritarianism or barbarism" is more persuasive if barbarism is real. I'm not saying there's anything else on the ballot.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

One side: We are rich and hate poor people.

The other side: We are rich and hate poor people, and also want to kill minorities and the people we think are deviants.

You: wow, totally the same.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Since they can't exist without each other - yes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the world can exist without Nazis. In fact, it did for a long time. It's only recent history.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I meant that Republicans and Democrats of today can't exist without each other.

Also no, it didn't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They absolutely can. You could have democrats party as it is today and then a socialist party. The Republican party does not have to exist at all for Democrat party to exist.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

For that with Harris as an electable candidate yes it does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your living in a GOP bubble, or just deeply racist if you think Harris isn't electable. That's absurd she's gaining traction at a huge speed, people are very optimistic about voting for someone old enough to know and young enough to do.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Reading comprehension.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are genuinely the dumbest person I had the displeasure to converse with in a long time.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Second dumbest at worst.