Maybe he did some creative accounting and discovered that, under the right circumstances, a candidate could make more money with a flop than he could with a hit.
When he said that I didn't know the context of the statement at first and thought he was turning on Trump. That's how on-the-nose it was as a critique of his "boss".
I so wish they would have called that out on the spot. The fact that Trump is perhaps the individual most disconnected with what a normal person’s life is actually like needs to be continually hammered home.
Its not even Olympics, they know that they are voting for the turd so they come up with something against the other candidate so they feel better about voting for the turd.
Its like undecided voters wanting to hear more of kamala's policies... ya ok, so what you're gonna vote for the guy with no policy instead?
The last part of your post is literally what I’m going through with my friend, she doesn’t understand how dumb she sounds. I keep reiterating that Trump has not once said anything that makes a modicum of sense, yet she keeps complaining about Kamala not laying out full policy structure. At least she is telling us what she plans to do…
More like a rotten grilled cheese with magas i mean maggots in it vs just a rotten pizza though, they are both evil corporate puppets just ones is worse. Im voting third party to try and get them to the 5% threshold needed for funding and debate invite next election.
They would to a degree. A few things would happen 1. The corporate influence will be spread thinner. 2. All the parties will tone down their favoritism toward corporations and toss us more bones to get the vote as there is more competition. 3. The extremism will tone down as there is more options, for example im pro choice and pro gun with reasonable restrictions, if there is a party with centric/moderate values the blue and red will have to adjust to compete, most Americans are moderates with left or right leanings and single issue voters, if they can get what they want without the baggage of the crazy stuff they will go that way. And 4. My favorite if there is multiple parties (4 or more), a random good independent has a strong shot at causing a disrupt and a slim shot at winning. Then at the local level people will be less inclined to just vote for their favorite color, in places that always go one way or another there would be some mixing up of the choices. My county always votes red so my vote is pointless, and the worse human, just automatically wins even though if any republican payed attention they would hate him also (he both blocked needed nature conservation and defunded the police both because he was not invited to a event and at another event someone he didn’t like from his own party and defunded the zoo because after holding a event for him there they decided to stop holding political events) but if there was a libertarian party, they would sweep him and i would have choices and maybe some would be good.
At the end of the day America fails if we only keep two parties.
Also they know they can literally research her policies...like we have the internet it's not the age of where politicians had to specifically make a bullet point in their speeches.
If they don't know her policies they aren't doing research just want to be told
Isn't this the reason a lot of them said they would vote for Trump in the first place? He's a self made man who isn't doing it for the corporate interests? He's good at business? I thought that was a selling point?
I know it's hypocrisy and inability to use critical thinking, but I wonder if it'll ever cease to amaze me.
75
u/XTingleInTheDingleX 5d ago
I had some magats share some drivel about not listening to Taylor swift because she’s a billionaire and doesn’t understand gas and groceries.
We know trumps really not a billionaire but he claims he is and brags about his gold toilet etc.
These people are obviously still going to vote for the billionaire, but won’t listen to logic from someone else because billionaire.
The mental Olympics.