Man, I just can’t even muster the snark I usually have for these sorts of boneheaded decisions.
This sucks, plain and simple.
This sucks, plain and simple.
Hopefully these 4 years energize people to vote. I know protesting and direct action and so on are also important, but the gradient is not negative for voting for every office you can vote for in every election.
For example, a lot of people have forgotten, but the phrase "fake news" originally came about in the wake of the 2016 election about all the (actually false) misinformation that was spread on social media in the run up to the election. Trump adeptly then co-opted the term, so any news he didn't like he could just call it "fake news", and who was to say any news he called fake was any less fake than what people were calling fake before?
My guess is the 2028 elections will be marked by fraud, and then when people protest or object, Trump and the Republicans will just say "Hey, you called all those Jan 6 protesters traitors and said the election was secure, how is now any different? Now you're all the traitors."
The only belief that gives me hope these days is "History will judge the complicit."
You are assuming there will be next elections that are free, fair, and matter.
Trump says a lot of things that ultimately doesn't matter, but he has also said, and is the type of brute to believe it, that he intends to stay in power. He and his cronies have successfully dismantled the checks and balances that should have prevented him from doing they, legally. IMO the only way he leaves the White House without stirring trouble is in a casket.
The unfortunate part is that education is often also part of propaganda and spinning history for said propaganda. These days I wish education had a bigger emphasis on history and history should be looked at from different angles, like how the same thing is being taught from different angles.
This euphemism has to end. I think you mean: "Hopefully these 4 years energize people to vote Democrat".
Why not just say it plainly instead of using supposedly non-partisan language? This neutral phrasing seems to be an appeal to a "silent majority" that agrees with you and disagrees with Republican leadership. What if that silent majority doesn't exist?
A lot of people seemed to have had this theory, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
It was all opinion. Trump said a lot of stuff before this election, but he said a lot of stuff before his first one too.
When people disagreed on what he might do, it was all guesses. There was no evidence to base anything on. Would his second term be restrained by people around him like in his first? That would be an evidence-based extrapolation. Would tariffs be all talk and little action, like in his first term? Extrapolating from evidence, they would be. But 2025 isn't 2017. Things would be different, but how? It's all guesses.
It's only hindsight that is 20/20.
Saying "there wasn't any evidence" is borderline bot-speak. Anybody who thought Trump 2.0 was going to be like the first round was simply not paying attention at all and anybody telling others it wasn't going to be like the first admin is either a Russian troll, the mainstream media, or just plain irresponsibly ignorant.
"Nobody could have foreseen this" is about the dumbest take I think I've seen so far.
Even the premise of their argument is silly -- "evidence-based extrapolation" lmao that's not how politics work at all.