• blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    When does this brinkmanship dilemma stop occurring? How long are dems gonna get a blank check to spit in our faces because republicans are a looming threat? Is MAGA gonna be gone in 2028? 2032? When is the income gap gonna stop accelerating? Or emissions? When are houses gonna be affordable, or education? What about the situation is supposed to improve if dems win 2028?

    • kiljoy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You get downvoted for actually expecting something from your vote. I’m sorry some 1/100000000 chance of a president becoming a dictator isn’t going to make me want to vote for someone who doesn’t want to fix economic problems for the middle class. Do better and winning the presidency would be a cakewalk do the bare minimum and possibly lose to Donald Trump.

  • Same paper that just ran the “Women should stop shunning Trump supporters in their dating pool” article. I guess that’s so they’ll be less likely to abused under the pending dictatorship?

      • Good point and probably not, but I’m too lazy to look right now.

        Edited to add: Presumably same editorial team, so the seeming dissonance between the two articles isn’t lessened much by having different authors.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It really depends a lot. If it’s something by the editorial board itself, then it’s a very jarring difference. But you can have writers with polar opposite viewpoints in editorials. It used to be nice from a reader perspective to get that variety, but then the right went wacko.

          That said, I do think it’s weird the section editor would approve something like “women need to date more conservatives”. Maybe they take the approach of not being responsible for what their authors say, but that crosses enough lines that it’s odd they didn’t step in.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As with Napoleon, who spoke of the glory of France but whose narrow ambitions for himself and his family brought France to ruin, Trump’s ambitions, though he speaks of making America great again, clearly begin and end with himself.

    As the author keeps comparing Trump to Napoleon and Hitler, I can’t help but wonder if maybe the US is due a conflagration. At what point do we admit that the American experiment returned a null result?