391

I think he might just have a fetish for losing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 136 points 1 day ago

Keep in mind that is exactly what I thought when Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 day ago

Hmmm.

You make a good point.

On the other hand, look at the history of presidents and their parties. It ALWAYS swaps parties unless there is a particularly popular vice president. Literally, back to Washington.

The US isn’t like Japan where the LDP wins consecutive elections for decades on end.

The republican candidate was GOING to win in 2016.

We are now in a time of chaos. I feel Dems will probably sweep the midterms and maybe win in 2028, but it’s unclear. We’ve only had one nonconsecutive president before.

I wouldn’t put money on James (Vance).

[-] BonsaiBoo@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago

Remember when the Supreme Court interfered in the presidential election because of hanging chads and effectively kept Gore from winning, thus leading somehow to the death of Harambe and bringing us to the bad place dimension where everything always gets worse and almost always in the worst way possible?

Yeah.. like you said, history likes to repeat itself.

[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 day ago

Oh yes; I remember the Brooks Brothers riot.

Begging the question — was Al Gore a particularly popular vice president?

Having lived through it, I would say no.

Which doesn’t mean Dubya was wildly popular. Only that Al wasn’t.

Whether Dubya won legitimately, the national mood wasn’t four more years of Clinton.

[-] BonsaiBoo@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Trumps approval rating when he was elected the second time was 47%. Al Gore’s approval rating when he lost the 2000 election was 62%.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Should've called it the Brook Brothers coup. Because in retrospect, that's what it was.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

look at the history of presidents and their parties. It ALWAYS swaps parties unless there is a particularly popular vice president

No it doesn't.

[-] First_Thunder@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Not really though, post civil war there was a 40 year pause where no democrats were president iirc until Wilson won due to Teddy Roosevelt splitting the vote

[-] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Yeah because the Dixiecrats were traitors… Then the democrats held a tight grip on congress after the depression and FDR was president for 10+ years.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago

That's because both sides are shit and just keep the rich and powerful, rich and powerful, in exchange for money.

[-] Oyml77@lemmy.today 2 points 16 hours ago

This is the shit that is put out there to keep people from being involved in politics because "why bother if both sides are the same?" and to deflect blame from the fact that the right is objectively worse in every fucking way. The Democratic party has a lot of problems and is in need of of a huge pull to the left, but it is better than the alternative. Dismissing it this way solves nothing.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 hours ago

Well we could always keep doing like the past dozen decades and endlessly have the population flopping back and forth between two parties and always pissed and screwed but never doing anything real about it other than "you have to vote guys. That will fix everything". The system is corrupted. Voting isn't going to fix it.

[-] Oyml77@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

Are you taking up arms for the coming revolution then?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Right. Standing up there and yelling "there's that f__ talk again!" as some kind of response, ala Idiocracy would be a huge selling point for the Tribe That Rub Shit In Their Hair. The pig people loooove that kind of stuff - they are intimidated by competency, expertise and people that are smarter than them. An idiot like donnie or Petey are their idea of "common sense" politicians.

That, combined with enough of the apathetic staying home as well as the armchair "leftists" that love to tell everyone how it is useless to vote, (at least to actually vote for a candidate that can actually win) and you'll get Petey in office...

I was about to say just that.

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

Never ever ask the universe to do something funny. It was already going to, and now it's irritated.

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
391 points (97.8% liked)

politics

30960 readers
2089 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS