Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
2
Comments
71
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • If that were all she had to offer, then you'd be right. If, however, purely hypothetically, she offered to actively combat price-gouging, for example, that would benefit the vast majority of people at the cost of the usurers' theft profits, which should net her the support of the vast majority of the electorate. Only one example out of many, which Fox will duly be silent about while focusing on HER ONLY BEING A DEI HIRE DO NOT TAKE IN ANY OTHER INFORMATION KEEP PARROTING THE DEI HIRE TALKING POINT FORGET ABOUT ANYTHING SHE ACTUALLY SAYS OR STATES ON HER POLICIES! DEI HIRE! DEI HIRE! DEI HIRE!

  • Did you watch the permanent 24 hours news cycle where they painted her as a radical lunatic marxist stupid DEI hire out to destroy the country and take away everyone's everything too? It is hard to overstate how crazy out there their propaganda is.

  • You seem to be wrong. Donald Trump didn't demand better and he didn't lose. The more pro-genocide party objectively won.

  • Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders.

    Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won? As in, showing more support for the genociding party and demonstratively siding in all points with the genociders with not even rhetorical pushback, just pure endorsement of the genocide? Which lesson will analysing this election yield again?

  • The caricature of her that Fox&co-conspirators presented was certainly terrible.

  • Technically, the US also has protections against wannabe dictators claiming they are above the law: a supreme court which, were it not undermined by that dictator's toadies, should shut that shit down in a second. Still, there's a difference between blindly following everything that court makes up out of thin air and supporting the actual rule of law. Same with democracy.

  • Being called socialist isn't even the issue. My point is that a news monolith has spent decades radicalising half the country and at this point there are enough cultists that will mercilessly tear down anybody Fox&Co paint a target on. Until there is a solid defense against such a hate machine, no party will flourish on its merits as long as Fox-drilled stooges will only be fed a caricature of any opposition Fox designates as the enemy. Even your perfect ideal candidate would lose the election. The boogeyman Fox would paint them to be would be so repulsive and half the country would never even hear their ideas anyway, except what skewed perspective Fox would blast the viewers with 24/7.

  • Counterpoint: anybody not cheering for Fox News' talking points sufficiently enthusiastically is declared "socialist" and all but suggested as target for public lynching (or in some cases actually the target of a lynch mob storming the capitol) and the masses have been drilled into going berserk at hearing the right keywords, regardless of what happens in reality.

    Calling an attempt to break this information monopoly over half the nation an uphill battle is the epitome of understatement.

  • Countdown until it turns out that everybody associated with any competition to Musk's companies just so happens to be a criminal Trump siccs his DOJ after: 5... 4...

  • Kirk being played by Chris Pineapple.

  • No opinion on the matter at hand, I'm just throwing out there that saving a woman's life when she's bleeding out due to lethal complications in her pregnancy is illegal until the last second in many states (let's see how Project 2025 will impact that in the future). Appointing the kind of special counsel that has been perfectly normal and legal since like forever? Illegal the moment he investigates Trump. Doing crimes? Illegal. Doing crimes as president? Immune, according to Trump's Supreme court sock puppets..

    What's legal and illegal only depends on how many judges you've bought these days.

    PS: Oh and all that brazen bribery shit that would get any other official not just fired, but straight up locked up? Perfectly legal but only if you're a Supreme Court judge. Guess who got to decide that? Go have a cookie if your guess was the very people accepting the bribes.

  • Yup. But that picture was taken right around the time when Canadians would still need boats to go to war against fascists.

  • Remember when the US and fascists were on opposing teams?

  • An education system sufficiently funded to actually do what an education system is supposed to do would be a start. I'm sure the cult profiting from getting free sheep from the status quo will immediately get on funding the department of ed-

    Oh.

  • When you look at what the mainstream media spew 24/7, it's obvious that aggressive propaganda works. And by "mainstream media" I mean the network with the greatest reach: Fox&Co-conspirators.

  • Don't worry, Trump will be there to throw some paper towels into a crowd. Problem solved.

  • "Fuck that particular con, I have a president in my pocket now."

  • Well, you see, applying the law equally to everyone might make some rich criminals appear like they are criminals on account of the crimes they evidently committed and thus make them appear less worthy of holding the highest office in the country and nobody wants that, right? Gotta keep the election fair by letting rich people get away with their crimes until they can pardon themselves, right?

  • Or powerwalked really fast.