I like Joe. He did infrastructure and the chips act. He’s a meat and potatoes guy. But his best attribute will always be not being Donald Trump.
Please explain to a non American, why a convicted felon not in federal prison but instead running for president?
On one side I have an old catholic bum who overall doesn’t do much on the other I have a convicted felon who wishes to remove my human rights and wants to turn the country into a dictatorship.
As a centrist, I’m undecided…
What’s funniest to me is seeing all these posts having downvotes.
Conservatives mad and their tears are delicious.
Schadenfreude has never felt so good.
It’s not conservatives. Conservatives aren’t on Lemmy.
It’s the majority of Democrats who now believe Israel is committing genocide. And who can’t afford housing or groceries
I’m not saying it’s not those people, they’re definitely a large part of it.
But conservatives are definitely on Lemmy. Just try talking about minority rights anywhere and watch them seep out of the cracks in the pavement to suck all of your energy out.
The only attacks on minorities that I’ve observed on here are attacks on those who think Gazans should not experience genocide.
Plenty of people on here who simp for the American ruling class though
That’s a pretty low bar…
Our choices are three old dudes. Two are senile and one is brain damaged.
The bar’s low but so are the standards this time around.
Convicted felons can’t vote, but they can run for office.
Yep. There was no need add that qualification because a conviction should drive voters away, but here we are.
This whole thing says more about the quality of candidates than the system, though. The fact that I can say “he’s demented” and you don’t know who I’m referring to shows that the political establishment has its collective head up its ass.
The reason the quality of the candidates is so low is because there’s only two parties that get almost all the votes. The reason that is the way it is, is because of the stupid vote system the US uses. I saw a video once, where someone calculated what the results of the last vote in Germany would have been if we used that system too and it’s really all you need to understand what the issue is. Using the US’ system, one party got most of the votes by far (like 80% or something), while with the system that we use (which is simply, the party gets as many votes as there were people who voted for that party), they had like 25-30% of votes. I’m not sure those numbers are 100% correct, I could search for that video and the results of the last election again if you want me to.
I want to see it.
Here it is
Thanks, but I was hoping for a link to the whole video rather than a screenshot.
One is a convicted felon, 34 times over, and there is more on the way. The other has never been suspected of any criminal act.
tHeY’rE tHE sAmE! bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe! LoL aMiRiTe
So many idiots can’t figure out who’s really rigging the game against them, even when it’s staring them in the face, blasting them with racist and fascist language and actions, with the breath of chronic bad health habits and the smell of soiled diaper.
Don’t forget found liable for rape too. Imo worse than his felony charges.
is that the terminology because of a civil case?
Jurors rejected E. Jean Carroll’s claim of rape. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse. But sexual abuse doesn’t sound as spicy as rape so people are content to misinform others.
you’ve confused the legal definitions with the layman use of the word.
To quote Judge Kaplan “clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.”
- New York Penal Law defines rape as vaginal penetration by the penis, which Carroll stated perhaps entered only “halfway”.
- A state law passed in late January 2024 expanded the state’s legal definition of rape to include nonconsensual vaginal, anal, and oral contact, effective non-retroactively beginning in September 2024.
I’m only interested in legal definitions as it’s objective, and layman can be subjective.
Also, wouldn’t halfway penetration still be penetration? Why would this not qualify as rape? Or is this due to her uncertainty via using the word “perhaps”?
Idk, he’s sponsoring a genocide. I’m pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it’s not like any US president in the last half century hasn’t been some kind of war criminal.
I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor’s refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that’s true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you’re celebrating.
I don’t know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it’s lost any punch it ever had.
Edit: typically, the only responses seem to think I’m saying this in support of Trump but like… I’m not. So if you remove that imagined motivation, where’s the lie? There isn’t one, right?
The other guy, the one with 34 felonies, has said he’d help expand the genocide.
How do you miss these things?
How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?
I have the answer: because that’s how the two party system works to push you towards defending the genocide guy.
Like, you get that the genocide support has a good chance of making him lose to the somehow-worse-genocide-guy, right? Like why aren’t you mad about that? Why do you constantly have to tell everyone to stop talking about the genocide support? You realise that’s a kind of genocide denial, right?
There are exactly two options here. It’s either the life long politician that’s actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.
Gee, I don’t know…
I’m also not a one issue voter.
There are exactly two options with voting. I assume you don’t see any others because your entire political imagination has been contracted to voting. I believe I anticipated your answer when I said that the two-party system has done this to your brain.
And “walking back” support of the genocide is one way to say that he hasn’t actually removed any of the material support, and also a way to obscure the fact that the “walking back” has mostly been lip service.
Who else is a viable candidate for president this election?
Nobody.
Two questions:
-
Do you think I am somehow saying people shouldn’t vote for Biden? If so, can you explain where I have said that?
-
Do you think the fact that Biden is the tactically superior choice means that we should not discuss that he is complicit in genocide?
-
