this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
1297 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

6436 readers
3657 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dx1@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Let's start with the very basic logic here. Let's say 80, 90 million people come out and vote for, say, De la Cruz. Accounting for the electoral college and all that, enough to secure a victory. Is it not true that virtually all of us had the option to put a check next to her name, or write that name in? It is true. Is it true that we would have had a better outcome for the society with De la Cruz, than we would have with Harris or Trump? That is also true. So what - SPECIFICALLY - stopped this from happening.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If everyone who had voted for Harris had voted for De la Cruz instead she still wouldn’t have won.

There are no serious third party options in the US currently.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

If everyone who had voted for Harris had voted for De la Cruz instead she still wouldn’t have won.

And?

There are no serious third party options in the US currently.

As assessed by you, based on arbitrary criteria and questionable analysis.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I just gave you the results of a poll called the 2024 election.

Is that based on arbitrary criteria and questionable analysis?

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

For the ten thousandth time in this thread, it's circular logic for a population not to vote for someone because they think no one will vote for them.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago

That’s why I voted for myself.

If I don’t then I will never win!

[–] CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Because I’ve never heard of De la Cruz, or any of the other third-party candidates that people keep espousing. And even if I had, my vote would be split among the other dozen candidates. That’s the fundamental problem with anyone left of the Democrat party - they’re not unified. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what would be best, everyone seems to have a different favorite candidate. Now all the votes that might have gone D are lost in the noise, while the R’s just fall in line like they always do.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

How is it that I had heard of them months before the election, and you're still catching up?

Back to the point I made elsewhere - the population is abdicating their responsibility to vote responsibly, that is the core problem here. Election came and went, and you didn't even research the non-D/R candidates. As the saying goes, politics isn't a spectator sport. Your approach is basically like going to a car dealership and asking them nicely to give the best deal. You gave up all your power at the door. You didn't fight them on the random fees they threw into the price, you just went, well, at least it's not the RAM dealership across the street. You didn't look on Craigslist for used cars listed by sellers, you didn't ask a mechanic what brand to get, nothing.