338
He's doing largely what Project 2025 outlined. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised
It's because they're stupid
Legit, something I heard from a trump voter after the election: yeah, I heard about Project 2025 and I hate it. But this election was to get trump into office, I'll vote against Project 2025 in 2025.
headdesk
and he said he was campaigning on it, why are is his constituents surprised.
Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do when American voters gave him all the power and took it away from the democrats.
You do realize that there are people who did not vote for him?
That always gets me with these kinds of comments too. It's like they are telling us we deserve this because we voted for it but almost half of the people that voted wanted something else. That's a whole lot of people who didn't want it.
I guess when you are talking to the void on the Internet you can aim your anger at whoever you want. We are just caught in the cross hairs
And it's not like it's going to be much better depending where you live in a lot of countries that are democracies(itself not so great under capitalism). Like what happened in the USA can happen and did happen in other countries to especially where fascist and authoritarian tendencies are on the rise.
This Perspektive also ignores bigger causes like media companies, systems of opression, political campaigns, lobbying groups and we'll people in power protecting their interests as well as the state, that can form and influence what becomes public opinion. And we'll far right fascist groups and their billionaires building this up for quite a while now.
Point being these developments are complicated and blaming the average American for trump's victory ignores the larger picture especially when you see people from Europe calling Americans stupid and thinking that an authoritarian takeover could never happen here in western eurooe. To that where just a few years behind but it is a very real possibility.
The people that sat out the process canceled out the people who didn’t want it and you can be mad at my comment or mad at the system for letting this happen.
I'm not mad at anyone. It is what it is.
Things could be different, but they're not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes but more people voted for him so he won.
But that doesn't mean that people who did not vote for him or literally could not vote in the first place are irrelevant. Or what about the people who are actively resisting?
Unfortunately for the point of this conversation they are irrelevant.
That’s how the process works.
Don't give them facts. They're just an irredeemable troll
allegedly
No he actually won but I’d love to see evidence if you have any.
i mean, thats what the numbers say, but actually he did a whole-ass treason so... fuck the numbers, actually.
It’s also what all the court cases said so far.
Too bad more people didn’t get off their asses and voted for Harris when it mattered.
i voted for harris in a gerrymandered district. i didn't have a vote; i feel distinctly disenfranchised as a matter of fact. edit: guess the state.
That’s great.
Lots of people didn’t vote though.
between gerrymandering, fraudulent fraud claims, last-minute roll drops, mail-in 'challenges', a coup, failure to enforce existing voter rights laws (and i could go on for some time in this vein i believe, and provide evidence at request for each of these), dont you feel there might be some suppressed turnout rather than simply low turnout? don't you feel there might be some legitimate claims to election tampering that might not have to do with directly interfering with the vote tally?
also i got no problem with you particularly smcf. i wasn't part of the downvotes here, i stepped away to listen to some music about an hour ago and i came back to that person telling you to shut up and i want you to know that from my perspective we are having a respectful exchange of opinions, no hard feelings here for making a valid observation about lazy complacent voting habits in american voters, nor for the unstated criticism lurking behind "That's great."
Would you shut up? That's done. We need to deal with now. Exactly what is your comment supposed to do? It helps with ZERO. What l, you want to sit and smuglybtell everyone your right? Congrats. You and millions of others. Now shut up. Pretty please
Exactly what is your comment supposed to do?
It blames people who weren't 100% on board with genocide in the hopes that they'll shut up forever.
So your answer is to be an asshole?
Nothing good ever came from being an Asshole.
Nice deleting of your previous answers. Don't b a dick.
So your answer is to be an asshole?
If you think I have been insufficiently civil to genocide supporters, report me.
Nice deleting of your previous answers. Don’t b a dick.
What are you talking about?
No sorry but everyone who didn’t vote needs to be reminded everyday what they helped bring in.
You should, yes. Listen to your base and you might not lose.
I have to clarify this: netanyahu is not your base.
I literally am against Israel’s genocide but I guess you wouldn’t care because it’s against your narrative.
I literally am against Israel’s genocide
You blame anyone who says that democrats shoudn't have enabled it. That's not what being against genocide looks like.
load more comments
(5 replies)
You're against isreal genocide because it costed you the elections lmao
load more comments
(3 replies)
i didn’t have a vote; i feel distinctly disenfranchised as a matter of fact.
That’s great.
centrism manifest.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Which is the majority, if you count those that voted for Kamala = ~75 million, and those that did not vote = ~90 million.
If they only would remember this at the next election. If there is a next election...
Dear Constituents,
Until you ignorant cunts stop voting down party lines, you don't get to act angry, shocked, surprised, disappointed.
It's the party stupid.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
338 points (100.0% liked)
News
37565 readers
1363 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS