You're viewing a single thread.
If I were them I wouldn't exactly have a strong emotional desire to protect the people who voted for a fascist felon over them.
Sounds like terrible leadership
In a democracy giving people what they chose is good leadership.
We don't live in a democracy and good leadership is not telling your whole team that they can get fucked because half of them made a bad decision.
Biden won the 2020 primaries by a huge margin, Trump won his primary by an even bigger margin, and Biden lost to Trump in the 2024 general WITH POPULAR VOTE.
Thats democracy. People chose this.
77 Million Trump voters who showed up and 6.6 Million DNC voters who stayed home, they all chose this.
Interesting you left roughly 60 million voters out of your comment that did NOT choose this.
74,749,891
But whats it matter? The majority decides the presidency, which bills get called to vote, budgets, etc.
It's not enough if less than half of us aren't complete monsters when most of us are. For the next election people need to do better, support the DNC, volunteer.
Absolutely false. People are fucking morons that do not know what they need. People are good at identifying the problems that face them, experts are good at finding solutions. Good leadership in a democracy is finding experts and supporting them to find solutions for the problems constituents face.
Okay so you're unironically arguing against actual democracy and I don't feel the need to say anything other than that to you.
Of course, good managers pick sides and help push the other one off a cliff.
Do your emotional desires dictate your politics? Or do you have an ethical system that does that? If so, why didn't your ethical system preclude you from writing that comment?
Emotions dictate the politics of the OP and artist, clearly.
Sounds like "whataboutism"/"tu quoque" to me.
See if it werent the primary topic being discussed here that would be fair like if I said "whatabout Trump's emotions!" then it would work.
In fact, you asking about my politics was more whataboutism than my statement.
Scrolling back up, not sure I read your first comment correctly, but it does still apply. A politician is charged with doing the right thing (as if they ever actually do), not following their emotional desires. It's unclear if you meant "the people who voted for a fascist felon" in terms of the public at large or just the Trump voters, though that applies either way (I know, we don't like being merciful to bad people). I do think encouraging retribution, at the expense of the wellbeing of a society, is actively harmful, I don't think that's ethical, which is what I was pointing out about your comment, not trying to discredit your argument by saying you're being hypocritical, which is what "tu quoque"/"whataboutism" would actually be. Now, you responding to my comment saying, "well OP/the artist have their politics dictated by emotion", that is a perfect example of whataboutism, because instead of acknowledging or even examining the criticism, you're just saying the same thing is true about someone else. So no, what I said was not more "whataboutism" then your statement.
I really don't like this thing on social media where somebody will make a completely incorrect argument and then it's like there's an expectation placed on you to go back and point out all the problems with what they said. Can we literally get like, just the basic mechanics of logic out of the way? Having to spend time establishing this shit is insane.