I will keep repeating this, Biden will be the reason Trump gets reelected. If he loves his country he needs to leave right fucking now. Democrats like him and Clinton are addicted to power. Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in both election but the democrats circles of power made sure to get the candidate they wanted. Old fool.
“The scary socialist madman” accompanied by the Democratic Party apparatus? A presidential candidate Sanders along with a moderate liberal VP would have gotten both the traditional Democratic vote (as long as the party collaborated with him, rather than giving him the Corbyn treatment, which I don’t trust liberals not to do) and a considerable chunk of the electorate who doesn’t feel represented by either party. The day you guys understand that you don’t have to fight the Republicans in traditional terms, but rather, to change the coordinates of the fight, you’ll force Republicans to choose between evolving or getting buried. But the real problem by this point is whether it is too late.
No, there’s an amendment in our consimtituion that says a president can only be in office for two terms total. The only president who evaded this was FDR and he’s still villainized to this day.
Actually. I’m pretty sure hes the reason that amendment got passed.
Before FDR it was just a tradition, started by George Washington. Personally I think FDR deserves a pass, he got us out of the great depression and through WW2, it would have been hard to have a leadership change in the midst of that turmoil.
Totally agree. But imagine a 4-term Obamna presidency, with the orange avatar of conservative rage building in strength and gathering malice for 16 years instead of 8.
I am pro term limits, but you’re kinda making a good counter point. Eight more years of Obama instead of Trump and Biden… Doesn’t seem that bad. The conservatives went ballistic anyway, at least we’d have reproductive rights and better healthcare. I’m certain Obama would have been a lot better at managing COVID and the BLM protests. He was pro ceasefire in Gaza way before Biden too. Idk, for all his flaws, Obama seems better than what we got in his place.
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn’t fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m not sure you know how political affiliation or “people” work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called “connections”, and it’s how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn’t have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn’t matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders “would not be president”
There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent
The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner,
superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.
or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m saying she doesn’t align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.
“The party” is the people who vote in the primary.
Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.
Party leadership is not the party.
It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
The Obama campaign is a good example.
Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).
So what rules did they break for Clinton?
Campaign finance
Debate questions
Impartiality
What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
I haven’t researched how unfair Obama had it so I can’t compare.
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying “no” not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was “this is a silly story. Sanders isn’t going to be president” at a time where he was already loosing.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Oh please. It’s even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn’t know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Yes. Because there was clear evidence of bias. Straight after, Debbie was rewarded with an honorary chair of the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
How are you sure there was no misconduct?
How are you sure there was no impact?
When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Or, because Hillary controled the party’s finances, procedures were made deliberately obtuse to her advantage.
Mr. Miranda asked Ms. Wasserman Schultz whether they should call CNN to complain about a segment the network aired in which Mr. Sanders said he would oust the chairwoman if he were elected. “Do you all think it’s worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway?” Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senator’s chances. “This is a silly story,” she wrote. “He isn’t going to be president.”
Shocking. She didn’t speak kindly of a person who publicly attacked her, and opted to leave the story alone instead of doing anything.
Most of the shocking things mentioned in the emails were only mentioned, and are then dismissed.
Your mistaking opinions and preference bias, which all people have, for unfair bias. Do you actually expect that the people who run a political party don’t have an opinion about politics?
The coin thing didn’t happen.. At best she won six out of a dozen, which is what you would expect. The reality is more complicated.
You grossly mischaracterize the agreement.
From the article:
This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC.
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).
In other words, her campaign agreed to give the DNC money to prepare for the general election, and in exchange they got to look at those preparations.
This was definitely the Clinton campaign assuming she would be the candidate, but it’s not exactly a smoking gun for financial impropriety regarding the primary.
Honestly, if your campaign can’t find a lawyer or accountant who can understand campaign finance management, you probably actually shouldn’t be in charge of a country. The financial arrangements weren’t particularly obtuse or obfuscated for moving millions of dollars between multiple political entities in multiple states.
Maybe you’re right but too many of us think the opposite. I would much rather a younger more progressive candidate but Joe Biden has a track record of beating Trump. Biden has done a lot of good things in his first term that I’d want to continue. Even where he hasn’t gone nearly far enough or balanced bad with good, it may be necessary to appeal to the undecideds in the middle. Biden is the only one who can overcome the Trump personality cult
If a big complaint is age, how is that a plus for Sanders? I’m sorry but he missed his chance and now is solidly in “too old for this shit” territory
How about we pick someone who vaguely approaches the average age of an American adult. There’s a ton - Buttigieg, AOC, I dunno even Kamala would be a million times better. Literally anybody under the age of 70. Why is that so hard to do?
You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you’re stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:
The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They’re not going to do a fucking thing that doesn’t make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.
I mean, I follow the presidental race somewhat because it has global impact, but watching the debates is not worth my time, and I’m fairly certain it’s not worth anyone’s time, especially non-americans.
They’re both right wing, but moderate right wing bought by corporate interests isn’t the same as fascist. It’s trending towards fascism, sure, but it’s less likely to go on a killing spree.
It’s obviously a common vernacular simplification from authoritarian with a broad definition. This is a commonplace and accepted vernacular in most modern western media based social media outlets.
Fascist can be liberal, they can also be conservative. Or communist. Or almost anything. More often fascists will lie and say they are more socialist than many of their policies would lead you to reasonably expect.
Grown ups are talking. Go play outside. You obviously need to touch grass, child.
It’s what modern elections are, and maybe even all historical elections, though I’m not old enough to determine that. What elections should be is throwing your support behind someone that you think is going to be beneficial for everyone. I know that is idealistic, and unfortunately the current system makes that basically impossible, but Washington said that partisan politics would be the downfall of this country, and his words are playing out in front of us. I really wish we would throw the parties, and lobbyists, out and force candidates to run on policy and merit.
See, you’re talking partisan politics, I’m talking “you literally have to pick someone”. We’ve had these candidates before. You already know which one you’re going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.
Beyond that though, there’s “parties” and then theirs “sides”. One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn’t, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.
By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you’ve picked a side. The side that doesn’t want to do good for only the “right” people, or make sure only the “right” people get hurt.
The only question is if you’ll vote for that side to win, or if you’ll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.
I shall, once again, for the 6th time in my life, hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast candidate the DNC has foisted on us. I wish we had RCV so I could vote for someone good, like Bernie, or heck I’d almost take Vermin Supreme at this point.
Dude, have you actually read vermin Supremes platform, or rather his actual political philosophy and beliefs?
I read through some of them once, and had the horrifying realization that the contemporary political figure that I think I agree with most closely is:
unelectable
best known for wearing a boot on his head
I couldn’t find where a lot of his actual opinions got discussed a bit more formally, but this random video snippet from 2008 does a decent job capturing it.
If I had (got? Got. I’d love to need to make the choice) to pick between a democratic socialist or a social anarchist, I think I’d honestly lean towards the social anarchist, all things being equal.
Oh yeah, he’s totally not a viable candidate, but he does have an actual political philosophy and opinions that are surprisingly agreeable. He just lacks the actual political fortitude or will to get elected.
A side as opposed to either side is how it should be. But don’t take my word for it, George Washington allegedly warned us of the potential perils of a two-party system on his deathbed but I’m unsure if that is common myth or actually true
George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn’t want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there’s a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.
He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the “right” people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.
Thanks, glad you like it! I spent quite some time re-making the template from scratch in inkscape, because the original meme din’t have enough space for the text
Miranda knows that she can continue to pocket a majority of the restaurant profits if she can get the staff to blame each other for their discontentments.
Na, Miranda is just an exploited shift manager who is making $3.00 above minimum wage that her profit stealing owner has convinced her will eventually turn into a fine quality of life if she just keep her nose to the grindstone so that she will turn around and fire her “underperforming” minimum wage underlings that will happily do something that damages their brain just to make 20 minutes of their 4 hour burrito rolling shift go by faster.
There is a good chance there was no whip-it (bop-it!) person either. This can read as someone promising raises and having another agenda, tying them together, and wham bam here’s your letter.
To me it isn’t just slashing the promise of a raise, it’s creating a reason to install cameras because someone wants eyes where they didn’t have them before. Assuming this post is true, I smell an update down the road.
TBF, for the last 30 years even Cyberpunk authors completely missed the point that capitalism will subvert these amazing technologies to make everything worse if we don’t do something. Neal Stephenson is a crypto shill.
Damn, that surprises and saddens me. I’ve only ever read one of his books, Diamond Age/A young lady’s illustrated primer, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and also thought there were some great critiques of the upper class
Manna got rampant capitalism + AI pretty close, and has predicted McDonalds payment kiosks, Amazon worker abuse, and probably some of the tech layoffs too.
Wow… I’ve worked in the fast food industry for 2 years, and that really hits close to home. With the kitchen display systems and headsets, with modern technology it would be easy to implement that… very easy. We’d still need one manager on the line for de-escalating angry customers but that would end up essentially the same as the book synopsis described. And the subsequent dystopia… I could literally see this occurring tomorrow. Kinda scary.
Neighbors helping neighbors? A collective group pooling resources in order to get social benefits? Community organizations? This all smells like dirty communism.
“You” is gender neutral, in its singular and plural form. “Y’all” is a useful plural form of “you” but as a New Zealand-English hybrid I do not have the accent to pull it off. If I could shift my accent further north perhaps I could get away with “thou” and “ye” for singular and plural forms, but only where they fit grammatically.
It is explicitly plural where ‘you’ is hard to pull off as plural because it leans heavily towards singular, just like ‘they’ leans heavily towards plural. At least in the US afaik the main competitor is ‘you guys’ for plural, which is one of those terms that is normally meant as gender neutral but the words clearly are not. So despite being from a place where that is the correct way to say it I’m in favor of y’all becoming the standard across the whole language, which it seems like it might be moving towards doing.
“ya’ll” is also American English’s answer to the problem of not have a plural form of “you” (see also: “you guys” or “you all” from which ya’ll is derived).
Due to English being heavily influenced by Romance languages, but not taking its grammatical structure purely from them, we really had no single-word version of “vous” (I don’t know other romance languages aside from French).
I’m an American who’s been lucky enough to travel to many other countries, and I’m currently living in the EU.
Blanket statements on praise-worthiness are stupid; one should only praise things, people, and nations when and where they deserve it. There’s a lot to admire and there’s a lot to be disgusted at when considering just about every country and government.
What I find in EU culture socially is that people are far more exclusionary, prone to isolationism, and prejudicial about my and my countrymen’s competence and intelligence than what I was told to expect. I expected some “haha, dumb American” memes, but I didn’t expect people here to honestly believe everyone thinks and acts like our worst people back in the US. It was very eye-opening in a negative way.
EU citizens need to stop treating outsiders as 1-dimensional caricatures, but regrettably, that’s been one of humanity’s greatest faults, and I doubt it will be rectified anytime soon. I try not to get too butt-hurt about it, as we say, but it is irksome after encountering that attitude in conversation after conversation.
Übahaupt, jetzt wo si Hochdeutsch imma mea duachsetzt, und vü junge Leit übahaupt nimma richtig östareichisch^1^ redn leanan, missn ma doch schaun, dass unsa Sproch net oafoch ausstiabt, oda?
Mia hom a a longe Tradition, wonns um Mundoatdichtung geht. Da Dichta von da obaöstareichischn Hymne zum Beispü, da Stelzhamer Franz, hot gonz vü in Mundoat gschribn.
Und weis ma grod eifoit: Es gibt a a eigene Wikipedia in unsam Dialekt: bar.wikipedia.org Oba do dua i ma söm schwah, dass i des vasteh. De is scho in da äagstn von de oagn Mundoatn gschribm.
(So, jetzt woas i net, wöcha Sproch i im Dropdown do untn auswöhn soid… Wei wirklich Deitsch is des jo net…)
[^1^] I am fully aware that the dialect I’m writing in is not called “Austrian”. The two big dialects spoken in Austria are “Alemannic” and “Bavarian”, and the one I’m writing is the Bavarian dialect. I’m only using the word “östareichisch” here, because that’s what I expect most people to use in spoken conversation.
Oh Gott, Oida. Ich habs gerade geschafft, den Text zu entziffern. Aber ernsthaft, ich glaub bei sowas immer auf den ersten Blick, dass da wer nen Schlaganfall bekommen hat und einfach mit dem Gesicht über die Tastatur gerollt ist lol.
Although honestly I’m not sure how much of this is Scots and how much is just specific to Scottish twitter lol
So actually having done some more reading this isn’t Scots - I’m fairly sure this is Scottish English which is somewhat a merging of Scots with English.
yea and galician “looks like” a dialect of spanish, norwegian “looks like” a dialect of danish, and afrikaans “looks like” a dialect of dutch. hell, i can say english “looks like” a dialect of ulster scots. “dialect”/“accent” and “language” are meaningless words
that being said the text in this post is scottish english, not scots
I cant believe how dysfunctional the us has become.
You actually voted for the biggest asshole and a retard to become president. He was wildly incompetent to the surprise of nobody. The country became a laughing stock. Secrets were leaked, justice compromised (even further), he attempted a literal coup. No, lets vote for him again.
We knew americans were dumb, but holy fuck. You need someone to protect you from yourselves because clearly your government is as caring as it is in russia. The entire population should be institutionalized.
It was always that bad, it was just better at hiding it in the past. Anyone who grows up poor has always known what’s up. There’s a reason the crooked rural sheriff meme exists… If it wasn’t for massive amounts of racism folks would probably recognize the same patterns in the cities.
It’s not new, it’s just that the dysfunction got so big that it started impacting the lives of white Liberals. Fuck, go read about native history in the US. They knew what was up from the beginning.
Once again pointing out that Trump never won the popular vote. Yes, we need to abolish the Electoral College. It favors the right wing unjustly and undermines the will of the people when it does not align with the popular vote.
Lots of people voted for him, yes. I’ll make the argument that things will actually get better as the folks whose cognitive abilities are negatively impacted by a century of burning leaded gasoline start to die off. I believe it’s something like >95% of people born between 1945 and 1965 that have enough lead in their bodies to be cause for concern.Can’t remember exactly where I read this, but you can do your own Google-Fu.
Striking those last couple sentences and just outright saying that over 90% of the entire population born between 1956 and 1976 were exposed to enough lead to raise medical concern in early childhood, according to the table below.
I’m also back to throw in the table/material I’m referencing. If I’m going to make assertions, I should back them up.
If you want some idea of how little we cared about lead exposure, just look up the Tar Creek Superfund Site., which turned three nearby populated areas into ghost towns. It’s been reported that children would play on the enormous mounds around Picher, Oklahoma, and those things were covered in lead dust.
You should probably be aware that the cheeto never won a majority vote in America. Our democratic system is broken to the core though, and there is basically no way to fix it which is why he still won.
Along with that a good chunk, possibly majority of Americans is already more decent than you because we don’t use dehumanizing insults like the R word.
Several states have even proposed banning him from the ballot for his coup attempt, including mine. Unfortunately they are being tossed out, probably by judges that he put in power.
I think you would be surprised at how little power Americans actually have to affect change in our government. Short of dragging our knuckles and starting some uprising like his goons did, change can’t happen, and I’m not one to resort to that. I’d sooner head to Canada or Mexico.
It’s hilarious for all the “democracy” the US loves to “export”, it actually has a pretty terrible democracy. Wildly popular policies have no way to make their way to the government unless a rich person or corporation also lobbies for it.
Change would happen if 74 million Americans would grow a second brain cell and stop voting republican. If democrats were the only party winning elections, people would be more willing to participate in primaries or vote for a third party
Our democratic system is broken to the core though, and there is basically no way to fix it which is why he still won.
The biggest fixable issue is the whole thing where all electoral votes in most states go to one candidate. That is a thing that is fixable. Because that is a matter of state law. The problem being of course that most states don’t want to change that, because for most states it would mean less attention from presidential candidates because they’d be playing less of a role in determining who wins (by being worth a smaller, harder to shift margin). Convince every state to switch to the way Maine and Nebraska hand out electoral votes (2 based on statewide popular vote, one for each house districts vote - states get one elector for each member of Congress this assigns electors based on who would vote for that member of Congress) and the problem is mostly fixed (everything except not being able to win the presidency by just winning California and New York by large enough margins and having an average showing elsewhere). Importantly, it’s fixed in a way you don’t have to get most of the states to agree with all at once to make happen.
Abolishing the electoral college outright would require a constitutional amendment and those are intentionally very hard to do. An interstate compact to functionally eliminate it by getting 270 electoral votes worth of states to agree to assign their electors based on the national popular vote rather than anything at the state level is somewhat more doable but will also be legally challenged under the doctrine that the federal government is supposed to approve any interstate compact.
Several states have even proposed banning him from the ballot for his coup attempt, including mine. Unfortunately they are being tossed out, probably by judges that he put in power.
Any judge that gives a fuck about the law and the Constitution is going to toss those out, as they are premature. He’s a fuckwit that’s awful in all kinds of ways, but he is still due due process. Arguing 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to Trump requires arguing he has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to an enemy. Which he probably did, but “probably” is not generally a standard we punish or restrict people over, nor do we do that without due process and the only process so far in this case is “has been investigated and formally accused”.
This is one of the reasons that the Trump legal teams first and highest goal is to delay. If they delay long enough they can argue that the courts are being used as a form of electoral interference and possibly give Trump an election boost, if they delay even longer and he wins they can argue executive immunity. Because that’s the path with the best odds for Trump - he’s much better at manipulating crowds than at lying to judges.
Fuck off with the “all Americans” garbage you fucking idiot. I don’t even care that it’s obviously bait, anyone who ever implies I voted for that can just end themselves for all I care. Suffering through this shit then being blamed by brainless retards
I see this take often and I see the same kinds of responses, but it’s really upsetting to see the main culprit is never mentioned.
Yes, some of us are just hateful, but most of the people voting for Trump are exposed to and consume wayyyyy too much propaganda.
Our media has failed us in sooooo many ways all to chase the Almighty Dollar™. We have literal entertainment networks masquerading as “News” because they’re allowed to act however they wish. We have actual “news” corporations acting like entertainment. We have Fox News and Newsmax straight up fabricating a reality for their consumers that is almost exactly the opposite of reality, and then we have CNN, MSNBC, etc, that would rather follow The Days Of Our Trumps T.V drama as opposed to actually doing hard news.
We have 1/3 of our population living in a fantasy reality, 1/3 being made to be enraged about an orange man’s dumb tweet instead of learning about potentially good candidates to vote for, and 1/3 that’s just apathetic to it all.
We have a gigantic media propaganda problem… We have no real press that the 1st amendment was made to protect, instead we have corporations that are taking advantage of those protections to do whatever they want to make the most money, to hell with what happens to the country…
Edit: all that to say, the people that we see as “OMG how could you possibly vote for him again, are you a monster?” Think “Trump was the best president ever, every news show or podcast or Facebook interaction I have had or watched says as much and proves it.”
Nope. There’s nothing special about Americans just like there’s nothing special about any nation or large group of people. You have to be deeply ignorant of history to think otherwise. We’re all the same species and when things play out in specific ways it’s always for a similar set of reasons and circumstances.
As Dan Carlin would say, “it’s a human thing.” You think this kind of insanity can’t happen in your country because it hasn’t yet. But you’re wrong. It can and has happened, many many times throughout history, in various forms, all over the world.
Again, Americans aren’t special and you have to be deeply stupid and/or ignorant to think otherwise.
Maybe not now, but that’s not the point. The point is that we’re all human beings and what history shows us again and again is that as a species we are capable of talking ourselves into group-level insanity.
There’s nothing about history that should lead anyone to imagine that the capacity for group-insanity is somehow unique to any so-called “race” or national identity.
If you really want to argue that Americans are somehow uniquely subject to such things, you then have to account for the fact that a plurality of Americans are directly descended from European ancestry which in turn means that any difference has to be cultural as opposed to some kind of genetic quality innate to Americans.
The upshot here is not that the US is somehow unique, but is rather that the US is precisely what happens when Europeans take over a brand new continent peopled by civilizations that lack the technology and microbiology to resist.
Again, this idea of yours, that Americans are somehow unique or special, is patently absurd given what we know of history.
lemmy.world
Top