• 10 Posts
  • 584 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle


  • Nah, if they didn’t have nukes and US backing (which is likely how they have nukes)…

    Then they wouldn’t act like they’re untouchable and wouldn’t commit so many genocides against neighboring countries…

    Like, what you’re doing is saying the schoolyard bully has to be a bully because no one likes them. Ignoring the fact that the reason no one likes them is they keep beating up smaller kids.

    They can stop being a bully anytime and the situation would improve. Getting mad at the bullied kids because they don’t like the bully makes no logical sense.

    Like, you expect people to just ignore when a different country attacks yours and kills your children?

    That’s just water under the bridge and they should get over it?

    It’s their fault for responding to violence with violence instead of meekly allowing themselves to be exterminated?

    Do you even read what you type?

    Or do you legitimately just not understand what’s happening?



  • What OP is talking about has been a thing since the 90s and even 80s and earlier with ex-military.

    Move to a cheap country where your pension/disability/passive income/whatever makes you wealthy.

    Originally places liked it because it was an influx in cash. But then it became too popular and they were gentrifying places to the point locals couldn’t afford to live and these leeches never worked.

    It became big again with the internet when people became able to work and American job while overseas remotely. But by now most American companies just won’t pay American wages. If they wanted someone overseas they’d pay them the low wage they always do.

    With those younger people they added the “temporary” because they say they’ll move back someday.

    What you’re talking about (if the job is in that country) would be a migrant worker.

    But they also don’t like that label, they think they’re better than it.






  • Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?

    To avoid confusion because it seems likely:

    If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point

    A more indepth response:

    What you linked:

    Weird. A bug in the app switched up my replies.

    What I intended to say was:

    I can understand. If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

    And when you point this out to other people, all you get in response are excuses.

    They’re explicitly saying that the people whom didn’t vote, didn’t vote because both parties are too similar and won’t help. They’re saying those people need more than “not trump” to vote D.

    I’m struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.

    If this still doesn’t make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?

    It just seems so obvious to me.

    And this isn’t a new conversation, we’ve been having it since 2016, it’s been 8 years man… Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn’t who he said in 08

    What aren’t you getting about this?

    Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America… Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn’t vote is “neither party will actually help”.

    You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___




  • I think you’re confusing me for someone else

    I voted D like I always do, so have most progressive on here from what I’ve seen them say.

    What me, and them, have been saying is that Biden and Harris had our votes, but every indication show d they wouldn’t get enough to beat trump.

    It’s fine to be upset about that, we are too. Probably more than any moderate, we’re literally losing more than you all, that’s why we care.

    But what’s scary is this has all happened before. Moderates refuse to acknowledge they’re unpopular with Dem voters, and rather than reach out to progressives for help reaching non-votera…

    You all just seemed obsessed with turning more Dem voters away from the party.

    Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn’t argue with you so much.

    The change we need is better Dem candidates, how the absolute fuck will that happen if we’re not allowed to acknowledge we keep running shitty candidates?

    Do you even remember how a fair and open primary is supposed to work?

    How is one of those ever possible if no one is allowed to criticize the party’s favorite?