President Donald Trump flubbed the introduction of Finnish President Alexander Stubb on Monday during the meeting with European leaders who support Ukraine. Trump was announcing each leader, who then would make a comment or thank him for the invitation. He gave each official a little compliment. As ...
    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      22·
      2 months ago

      She represented the status quo every single person is so fucking sick of. To the point Donald Trump seemed like the better option to enough people. That’s an abysmal fucking failure of, well, the status quo.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        13·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think most people understood what the “status quo” was until Trump started destroying it.

        Yes, “status quo” is billionaires, and monopolies, and low-level corruption, and so-on.

        But, “status quo” is also civil liberties, a somewhat functional department of education, not having the national guard chasing down brown people in the street, a bureau of labour statistics that didn’t invent numbers to please the dear leader, cabinet secretaries that weren’t actively working to destroy the thing they were assigned to lead, low-level crony and nepo corruption and not over-the-top obvious bribery, and so-on.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 months ago

      I choose the lesser of two evils so I can feel smug as wealth inequality spirals out of control and the planet dies around me.

        • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
          4·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, it sucks that our population is so uneducated that they will just spitefully vote out the incumbent when the economy gets worse.

          But no amount of blaming voters will ever win a race, the Democrats failed to manipulate the dumbass masses, it’s the Democrats fault they lost.

      • sloppysol@lemmy.world
        19·
        2 months ago

        As opposed to? Doing nothing? Voting to accelerate that process even faster? What do you think is going to happen next, now?

        • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 months ago

          No dummy, i think we should discard the Duopoly and support a party that wants to IMPROVE things.

          Maybe after the next milquetoast neolib fails to improve things (because they refuse to attack their owners), and the next Republican fascist takes over (because wealth inequalityjust keeps getting worse), and we can finally learn this lesson.

          Because it’s been happening every 4-8 years for the last half century.

          • sloppysol@lemmy.world
            3·
            2 months ago

            What, everyone supporting a new party? Wasn’t there a book called Tipping Point? Why hasn’t it happened yet with that?

            I just don’t see how we can change the process, same as you, by everyone suddenly changing their minds before Trump dies setting a precedent for a third term. There aren’t enough Mamdani’s out there.

            Just shooting the shit dummy, not shitting on you.

          • zzx@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            You can do both… Most people are trying to do both. Harm reduction and improvement are COMPATIBLE STRATEGIES. If you think you have helped the world by refusing to vote for Kamala, then you have fallen for propaganda. Everyone is sick of the neolibs… Doesn’t change that letting Donald Trump get elected was a deathblow to the United States

          • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
            7·
            2 months ago

            Going to pretend this is a genuine question in case someone else sees this.

            First and most obviously: mutual aid networks, food kitchens, and other volunteer organizations are NGOs that provide literal relief from the immediate effects of economic inequalities.

            Additionally, these programs can be used to build relationships with people that agree broadly on these issues and develop the education needed to get people on board with more radical change.

            Second, engagement with local politics can be used to push political party platforms that are more beneficial to everyone. Yes, there is a ton of inertia to overcome, and national parties are heavily captured by capital interests, but a lot of concessions can, and have been, won at local and state levels. Again, even where this effort fails directly, it helps build the kind of connections needed to create the consent needed for more radical change.

            Finally, and most Libby, yes, also vote. Every lever we can keep out of the hands of opposition is one that is harder to use against us later.

            Voting is the least effective of these, but (until proven otherwise) there is still some power available to us through this method.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 months ago

      Keeps’ blaming the base for the candidate staying pro-genocide. Precisely what mechanism should be be used to “move” 6 million voters on their anti-genocide position?

      Pretty bad look. Makes you look like a genocide apologist. You should just stop.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          11·
          2 months ago

          You keep trying to blame the voters. Harris was the problem. Blaming the voters (which you did in real time in 2024) handed the election to Trump. You can’t, nor should you “move” 6 million people onto the wrong side of history by asking them to support a genocide. You might be able to move a candidate. Blaming voters is a total and complete distraction.

          You (and those who adopt the same strategy as you) are the reason we ended up with Trump. And this toxic, destructive mindset of yours needs to be buried so we can actually have a chance of stopping Trump in the future.

          • Zeke@fedia.io
            27·
            2 months ago

            Voting red or not voting is still the reason Trump got into office. He supports the genocide, but ok, HaRriS BaD. Note I don’t like Democrats either, but I don’t agree with throwing votes away because of one issue that was worse on the other side. The people who didn’t vote or voted the other way supported genocide by letting Trump win.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              7·
              2 months ago

              But this is entirely the point. Blaming the voters gives you the opportunity to wash your hands and absolve blame, but it doesn’t get us any closer to winning the election in 2024. Not now, and not then, in 2024, when it was happening in real time.

              There was one way to beat Trump in 2024: Get more votes than him. Its obvious now that the argument “less bad” wasn’t good enough to convince 6 million people to show up. We ran the experiment. We got the data. We know the outcomes.

              If you, or SatansMaggotyCumFart, or anyone else wants to keep defending this approach, the onus is on you to provide a mechanism for how this argument gets Harris 6 million more votes.

              Satan’ thinks they have an axe to grind because they were couching their rhetoric with the expectation of failure from the onset. The argument that “less bad” should be good enough is bad politics and doesn’t work because it doesn’t convince any new voter who didn’t already accept that argument to show up. The more that argument shows up, the more people think that this failed approach to electoralism has legs, the further we get from actually being able to beat the Trumps of the world.

              Harris offered voters nothing, and we were quite literally begging her to throw a fucking crumb of rhetoric saying she would stop arms to Israel, because it was obvious to anyone with eyes that she was going to lose the election if she didn’t move on this issue in August. And Satans approach to that point was to push those who were critical of kamala FURTHER out of the party; basically the same treatment the DNC gave to Palestinians at the convention.

              Don’t be like Satan. We need to actually win, and Satan’s approach will lose us another election. Criticize candidates, intensely. FORCE them into positions that can actually get them elected. Demand that candidates move to where their voters are, because there is quite literally no mechanism to move 6 million voters into supporting genocide, and if you promote that, you are a bad person.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              6·
              2 months ago

              Good. Maybe go away from ever commenting again too.

              {What do you think the point of reposting hard evidence of your toxicity is?}

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            2·
            2 months ago

            It really must be difficult to do the mental gymnastics required to absolve yourself from the key role that you played in the rise of American fascism… I mean, I get why. It must feel awful to know the truth.

            So blame everyone but yourself.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 months ago

              So what exactly is it you think you are accusing me of? Not voting sufficiently hard enough for Kamala? That I argued too strongly that Kamala wasn’t winning based on the data I had available and what analysis and inference I could develop?

              Or that I argued that she needed to do something different in her campaign to win based on where the electorate was at?

              Do you genuinely believe that because people pointed out that Kamala was running a disastrous campaign, that this was why she lost?

        • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          These idiot’s solution to the trolley problem is to complain about the lever and how there should be better level so it’s not their fault for not pulling the lever that was available.

    • Gates9@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      I’m not putting my mark next to the name of someone who supports genocide, and Harris made it clear that her position was the same as Biden (“No daylight, kid”). It would be an act of tacit approval, and I would be complicit.

  • you_are_dust@lemmy.world
    50·
    2 months ago

    I love having an Alzheimer’s patient as president. We have a minimum age for president and there should be a maximum age too.

    • Herbie@lemmy.world
      8·
      2 months ago

      I think whatever the average life expectancy is at the time of elections, the maximum age you can be president would be 10 years less. That way they have a decade to sit in the garbage world they created

      • felbane@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 months ago

        I think the maximum age for any federal office should be tied to the average national life expectancy in some way, so that if these fucks want to keep their office they have a vested interest in passing policy that makes life expectancy go up.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          This is the first time I’ve seen a comment about upper limits on age I could see making some amount of sense. Most of the other stuff boils down to bUt tEh gErOnTaCrAcY which is just so tiresome.

          This is something that this futurist can get behind, for sure. I am watching these current asshats working directly against increasing the average life expectancy right when I think we are right on the cusp of making massive breakthroughs.

  • zzx@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 months ago

    Okay then NVM lol sorry. To be fair you are still coming off as if you didn’t, and as if people SHOULDN’T vote with harm reduction in mind