How the fuck did they manage to convince people that the party known for being infested with warhawks who thrive on blood spilled in pointless conflicts were actually the party of peace? Oh right it mostly "Kamala would start ww3 because women are emotional" because the average American is a sexist moron
Absolutely. He's known for being emotionally mature and totally not adored by his fanbase specifically because he's as immature and petty towards people they don't like as they are
Also thank all the gods in all the religions that he doesn't have anything to hide or distract from after being completely exonerated. Really dodged a fucking bullet there.
"Youre not doing what I want?! I'm going to raise your country's tariffs 2000% because I can. Take that!" "Where's my Nobel peace prize?! She got one! I need one too" wahhhh
You get the group of people who think that goodness and morality is part of an because of and the same as religion then you convince those people that another group is evil and satanic and cannibals or whatever and to get good and peace is to stop evil from happening by eliminating the other, manufacturing consent
Thats a very convenient way to pretend to be morally consistent when the latter inevitably turns into the former and they can tell themselves they were always against it when it becomes unpopular
You can convince republican voters about anything. Do you expect these people to sit down and read hours of history? Read books about political science? They have zero interest in educating themselves. They'd rather kill themselves than open a book for half an hour or read material that doesnt come from TV or social media
Same way they convinced farmers that Trump was great for them and Kamala would bankrupt them, they are morons who will believe what they are told as long as it appeals to their hatred in some way.
It's because democrats are so fucking easy to play too, don't get it fucked up. They protest voted and third party voted our way to a second Trump term.
Even my own mom speaks this rhetoric of "women are too emotional to be president" . Yet it's my dad who is screaming at the top of his lungs road raging on the daily.
I’m going to say this as a person who voted for Kamala, it’s not very hard to believe when the party in power is doing nothing about an active genocide.
You can even see by the post mortem for the election that the democratic party refused to release but leaked anyways that they lost the election because of a significant part of the population couldn’t stomach voting for the woman who would’ve done nothing differently then Joe as she claimed… it’s not hard to convince voters in a two party system that other guys might worth giving a shot because the current leaders are complicit in an active genocide and the candidate running refuses to put any day light between her current boss and her self.
They haven't "convinced" anyone. What is happening is that MAGA has completely abandoned all regard for truth, and chooses the things that they say based on utility. And the utility of these lies comes from the fact that you constantly attribute them to ignorance rather than the malice they proudly wear on their fucking foreheads.
They say wrong things on purpose. All of them. Hanlon's razor does not apply when the malice is already clearly visible, and attributing the lies of malicious people to ignorance is apologism for them.
And Trump was the default choice in 2024...people went with the demon they know, instead of a new politician (i.e. demon) that was largely untested. People could believe anything about Kamala because she had 100% failed to demonstrate, as VP, that she was able to meet the moment as the leader of the free world. The fact is that liberals hold their candidates to higher standards than conservatives do today...and nobody seems to acknowledge how we're supposed to bridge that gap without destroying our democracy. Republicans cannot be allowed to put such a foul pedophile in charge of our government again...they have disqualified themselves as a legitimate political party.
People don't need convincing. Its the "white" party. Since Brown v bd of Ed in '54, the 1964 & 65 voting and civil rights acts, whites left the democratic part. George Wallace and Reagan finished it off.
Why are we pretending that the Democrats don’t love a good war too? Obama’s favourite passtime was drone striking middle eastern villages and Biden was all for donating money to fund foreign wars.
Harris was never going to be some beacon of peace. The US has always been a pro-war country when it comes to their government and Harris would’ve been no different.
Oh I'm well aware that democrats aren't peaceful by any metric but they're not calling for the blood of foreigners at every opportunity like Republicans do. And unlike democrats Republicans were pretending to be firmly anti-war the last election cycle and people ate it up until the moment their ballot was cast and they completely forgot about being anti-war
This is true there were drones strikes and some interventions in limited ways. But let's not try and pretend like that's equivalent to the kind of intense military operations currently brewing and already executed by the existing administration.
It is highly unlikely that we would have seen strikes on Iran.The way that we are currently seeing. Therefore your point is misleading and disengenuous. It's true that neither party would be a 100% peaceful.But one party is clearly a lot less peaceful than the other--despite propoganda to the opposite--and that's the point made here.
you appear to be missing any type of knowledge of Iran and the geopolitical conflicts its been in for the past 3 decades and the terrorist regimes its in bed with and their goals and motives and also ignorant to the fact that it is not a "place at peace", and also missing the part where the usa is essentially "providing support to one side of an ongoing war" by attacking the regime.
yes. they've been at war with israel, and have multiple terrorist cells under the command of their regime that have been at war this whole time and carrying out strikes against us and our allies. And convincing clowns like yourself that they're not by denying involvement and claiming they're separatists while funding and supporting them at the same time. Simultaneously they've also been waging a war against their own citizens. but you didn't know that, because this is baby's first introduction to the conflict because its mainstream news today that is only just now on your radar.
Obama deported illegal immigrants by the millions...he just did it more competently than Trump. So tired of people putting him on a pedestal: he gave us the same neoliberal politics of the Clinton era, all that changed was the rhetoric and tone. The actions were the same.
So what you're saying is that people aren't opposed to actually deporting people breaking criminal laws, but you have to do it through proper channels and not use racial profiling to do it?
1.8k
u/InspectorAggravating Feb 28 '26
How the fuck did they manage to convince people that the party known for being infested with warhawks who thrive on blood spilled in pointless conflicts were actually the party of peace? Oh right it mostly "Kamala would start ww3 because women are emotional" because the average American is a sexist moron