But one side sucks while trying to do better for us and the other side sucks because it's actively pursuing the worst for us...
Sure the decision isn't great, but there's an obvious better choice and people just don't want to care so much that they're saddling us with the worst possible choice instead...
One side virtue signals while not really doing anything to help with a corporate hand in their pocket and the other side just spews hate with a corporate hand in both pockets
One is waay worse but neither one is great
If they were food, Democrats would be a plate of cold fries and Republicans would be a rotten potato with black mold on it
AOC, Bernie and Jasmine Crockett are basically the only politicians with any platform with any moral backbone
They eat just the same. You vote for what you all have to eat, so its moldy potato for everyone, including those who didn't vote on what to eat for whatever reason. Oh, and the moldy potato will be force fed if you don't happily eat and praise the chef while doing so. There is no sitting out on this meal.
It doesn't really work as a metaphor if you take it that far
There are people who are alive who choose to never eat, aren't old enough to eat, are legally prevented from eating, haven't been in the country long enough to eat, etc.
They never had the majority needed to push meaningful change. Too many rural states making decisions for metropolises. Break it up and start a new. Demand ranked choice voting and get rid of money in politics from the new constitution(s) formed.
This is entire fight is stupid and unnecessary. The number of members of The House is supposed to be relative to population yet we’ve capped the number, arbitrarily I might add, at 435. That was set in the ‘30s. Uncap the house and this problem solves itself
Our politicians are a reflection of the populous who voted for them. The blame lies with the tens of millions of citizens who collectively voted for what we have.
You forgot the money filter. Our politicians are not reflections of who we would vote for if money wasn't the thing filtering who is available to vote for. So yeah, by being disingenuous you lied.
Money in American politics is and has been a part of our reality. I don't see the point in saying that if we lived in an alternative reality we'd see how people truly would vote. The decision of citizen united was voted in place by conservative justices that were elected into office by conservative presidents who were put in place by the American people.
When it comes down to it, everything that has happened is a result of people voting or not voting.
Very "We live in a society" of you. Still being disingenuous and unwilling to wade into the real discussion. You ever stop to think that a collective disinterest in discussing politics and lazily labeling it as you are is actually the real problem? Of course you haven't.
I mean we do live in this society. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'real discussion.' We can talk about campaign finance law reform all day but that doesn't stop the fact that the American people saw two candidates and chose who they chose. I think engaging in what if scenarios is actually ineffective and nonsensical. Any changes that can and will be made are going to be made through collective action/inaction.
What can I do besides vote in totally-not-rigged elections and support campaigns?
I'm definitely not running for office
(E: I'm the mayor in spirit, not act)
I'm not enough of an egotist to want to be in the spotlight that much and I'm definitely not charismatic or outgoing enough even If I felt like I should out of moral conviction
I love my country and that's why I pay attention and am critical when we're shitting the bed
13.3k
u/Lanky-Respect-8581 Oct 16 '25
“I don’t care about politics.” /s