this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
764 points (98.7% liked)

NonCredibleDiplomacy

586 readers
30 users here now

Shitposting about geopolitics, diplomacy, and current events for shits and giggles

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world 46 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (8 children)

I still don't understand how DJT was re-elected.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 41 points 6 days ago (2 children)

People want evil, simple as that.

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

No they want bread and circus. But bread costed too much so here come the clowns.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

MAGAts are not as evil as they are stupid.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (10 children)

I have never really seen that postulate as practical in the real world. I prefer my own ~~version~~ (EDIT: addendum; failed to describe properly):

Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by monetary profit.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I always go with if the results of the stupidity are indistinguishable from malice, you can go ahead and attribute it to malice.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

If your choices and actions consistently hurt other people, and you refuse to listen when people point it out and change your ways, then you're evil. No matter how stupid you are.

There are plenty of dumb and/or ignorant people who are kind and generous and who are not fucking bigots who make life hell for everyone around them.

Edit, typo

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

Malicious people must just adore that fucking phrase.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 474D@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Because the Dems ran a lackluster campaign that promised more of the same, telling everyone that the economy is doing great while everyone is struggling. Orange man at least offered hope that things would change. People NEED hope. And with trust of the government at an all time low, with some serious money in media manipulation, this is what we get

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

... but how it was not obvious to all that orange man was lying, is the bit that gets me.

[–] 474D@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Because people are struggling and don't donate time to stay informed from reliable sources. They see the story that is pushed to them by social media algorithms... which have been bought

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Americans are really goddamn stupid and selfish.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 18 points 6 days ago

Racism. Trump promised a lot of it, and he is delivering onthat promise.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because American voters preferred to have this than to have a woman president. For the second time.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I don't think that's the correct take. Both times it was maintain status quo vs a disruptor. The status quo has been terrible for the majority of Americans so they were willing to take the risk on the disruptor. That's the same reason people split ticket voted for both Trump and AOC, they're both disruptors.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah the status quo of green energy, massive infrastructure investments, supporting Ukraine, EVs, PACT act, drug price controls, marijuana pardons, student debt relief, etc. How dare they!!!!!

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The pathetic support of Ukraine barely giving them enough to just hang in the fight. Drug prices for 4 drugs. Alleviating the symptom of student debt and ignoring the root problem. Ignoring housing affordability. Ignoring the growing wealth inequality. Add on to of that parading around Bush era conservatives... Yeah, the status quo that needs to be disrupted.

It's not surprising that the DNC picking someone who dropped even before Iowa during the previous primaries was not a good strategy.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah supplying Ukraine with weapons and rallying all the allies to do the same is soooo much worse than Trump's "just surrender" policy. B-B-B both sides same!!!

4 drugs? Just going off memory it was in the range of 10 or 12. So this is the point where I stop reading your lies.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I'm not both siding anything. One side is significantly better as you have even shown. Biden only gave barely enough weapons at every stage of the war. He never gave enough for Ukraine to fight back, only enough to hold Russia off. Yes, far better than the just give up strategy, but not exactly something to be proud of. Which kind of sums up all of Biden's tenure.

Lol, you're right it was 10 drugs. So successful a whole 10 drugs! When they announced that "success" the entire countries response was, "and?"

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Total coincidence it was a woman versus a wildly unfit man both times that the women lost!

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Well, no. Both women were picked by the DNC and not by the voters.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

A fucking ham sandwich should've won against Trump. A man did.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Biden only won because of how badly Trump fumbled his Covid response. Anyone would have won against Trump in that specific election. In 2016 and 2024 the political climate was very different and the DNC chose basically the only candidates that would lose to Trump. Bernie was/is a disruptor with a big supportive base that could have beat Trump. In 2024 the person who polled the worst against Trump was Biden, the second worst was Harris, yet "unnamed democrat" dominated the polls. Yes, be mad at the voters, but also be mad at the DNC who sacrificed everyone's future to push the status quo instead of embracing real change despite the voters clearly signaling that's what they want.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (13 children)

That's not how that works. The voters picked Hillary in 16 to run with the party nomination. The voters stuck with the incumbent, and when they dropped out due to health reasons the secondary stood in as is standard practice. If you've got an issue with it you should have fucking registered Dem and voted in the primaries like intelligent responsible civically engaged citizens do. Instead of bitching on the internet about shit you clearly don't understand.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 6 points 6 days ago
[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

American voters had a choice between utterly corrupt oligarchy enablers and entertaining utterly corrupt oligarchy enablers. Are you not entertained?

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

No, they had a choice between a worthless piece of shit and a passingly decent woman.

At least Kamala would have cared about the optics of her presidency.

load more comments (2 replies)