It really is true that for some people history began in 2016. (thelemmy.club)

submitted 1 week ago by InevitableSwing@hexbear.net to c/slop@hexbear.net

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://bsky.app/profile/slaybutterbaby.bsky.social/post/3mkdfam6q3k22

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] whiskers165@hexbear.net 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Tbh 2024 vindacated 2016 nonvoters.

I would've voted for Hillary 2016 but didn't because I was totally demoralized by her platform, Standing Rock, and the bitter primary contest plus I had work that day so it just didn't happen. I always felt bad like I should've but seeing Kamala shit the bed so hard with the same tired routine as Hillary made me realize that I hadn't been nearly hard enough on Democratic candidates.

8 years after Trump's first victory and they learned absolutely nothing, basically ran the same playbook and lost even harder. I didn't want to be divisive but apparently I wasn't divisive enough. My whole life and theory of politics was basically we needed to stop the Republicans before we could pull Democrats left, a giant crock of shit. Now I'm more interested in stopping bad Democrats rather than generic Republicans, gonna try that for a decade or two and see how it goes

[-] huf@hexbear.net 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

watching 2016 democrats and their inability to react is like watching 2010 hungarian opposition try to react to orban. y'all are 10 years in, it took this country 16 years to produce any kind of alternative and it didnt come from the "traditional" opposition.

edit: and even then, it's not the sort of opposition you'd like

[-] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 20 points 1 week ago

I voted for Biden in 2020 because I really wanted Trump to lose. I knew there was an effectively zero percent chance Biden and the dems would pack the court but I have to admit that I tried to imagine there was a smidgeon of hope. Whoever the president is in 2029 and whatever the make up of congress is - there will be an effectively zero percent chance the court is packed. The dems will never do it.

Everybody in the 2028 dem clown car collection of presidential hopefuls will use their court reform go-to of saying they want term limits and an ethics code which - of course - is fucking stupid and requires voters to keep on voting and voting and voting as we wait and wait and wait for the fuckers to die of old age, terminal illness, or misadventure.

[-] Crucible@hexbear.net 32 points 1 week ago

Oh yeah well I'm hating you first for not voting in the 2000 election. We could've had Al Gore if you had just voted, and had a time machine to un-rig the supreme court

[-] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 21 points 1 week ago

What I love about the average liberal is they keep whingeing about the court. But some of them never say it needs to be packed. I don't think they even want it to be packed. Like republicans want to own the libs - the libs want to "own" (in a an uber-lib way) the people they hate: non-voters and such. The easiest way to do that is to complain for the next few decades about stuff like the court.

[-] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

Packed in a box and shipped to Antarctica.

[-] Florn@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Artificial Intelligence Gore

[-] Elysia@hexbear.net 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Okay, but even by their own logic, who gives a shit if you forgive them? According to you, you'll never be in power again without nonvoters and people who dislike genocide, so you'd better start worrying if they ever forgive you for being a disgusting genocidal freak lol

Like, I'm not American, but sometimes I want to pretend to be just to bully them catgirl-sorry

[-] rootsbreadandmakka@hexbear.net 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

History: time immemorial to 1991 ad

End of history: 1991 to 2016

History 2: 2016 to 2021

Brunch: 2021 to 2024

History 2 resumed: 2024 to present

[-] axont@hexbear.net 24 points 1 week ago

Wouldn't the only people culpable for 2016 be a handful of voters in like three swing states? Because Clinton won the popular vote in that election. She won the majority of votes.

So you'll have to specifically blame like 20,000 voters in like Pennsylvania and wherever else. Don't look at me, I'm from Texas. I voted as hard as I could for Mimi Soltysik in 2016 and Clinton still lost here by over a million votes.

[-] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

I remember constantly reminding libs after 2016 that more people voted for Hillary. Very rarely did this result in them actually reflecting on the fact that maybe the institutions they hold up as sacrosanct are actually deeply undemocratic and should be replaced ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Hell, Trump didn't even get a majority this time either. 49.9%

In a normal country, no candidate reaching a majority would have triggered a run-off election.

[-] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago

dems who didn't spend their whole careers getting rid of the electoral college after 2000 are at fault

[-] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah it’s a handful of voters in a depressingly small number of places and it’s been 10 years. A lot of the people involved in the choosing are deader than doornails.