MAGAs: "I didn't vote for this!"
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
217 points (99.5% liked)
politics
28692 readers
2803 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What? Trump lied? Well, I never.
No end date, no plan, no justification, no authorization. Every reason has been easily and quickly debunked or contradicted by his administration's own messaging. They told Congress a week ago that there was no threat of imminent attack from Iran. Basically, "trust me bro."
There's a serious problem with executive power. My only hope is that the rest of the greedy politicians will take that power back so they don't lose theirs. Not great but a step in the right direction.
My hope is looking more like a decade of humiliation before Americans finally wake up.
Yeeeeah. I can't disagree unfortunately. Shit is pretty bad over here. I hate guns but decided to join the Socialist Rifle Association and arm up just in case. We can't trust our neighbors anymore and I don't see a way back that doesn't either take decades or some really shocking events that affect everyone personally. We're really god damn stupid
He is pro-war. He just thinks that the former presidents were "stupid" for not "taking the oil". Anyone who believed otherwise is just a fucking fool who got duped again, and the media should be fucking ashamed of themselves for their performance in 2024 covering him.
Promise: EVERYTHING
Deliver: NOTHING
Blame: ~~DAD~~ ~~OBAMA~~ ~~BIDEN~~ ~~STAFFER~~ ~~CANADA~~ ~~SHUTDOWN~~ SUPREME COURT
I like blaming LBJ's admin then Regan's. It's not the start of the problem but it's closer to it
Don't forget Ford, for pardoning nixon, setting the modern and dangerous precedent of not holding presidents accountable.
I'm old enough to see LBJ as the start of all our problems.
I can't believe I miss Nixon. You know, the good old days. Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in '72.
What did LeBron James do to deserve being put in the same sentence with Reagan?
Or preparation or plan or objectives.
The networks are rah-rah war, support The Troops, and not one mention of the fact that this is a war for oil.
This guy will say anything to get voted. Has never been following up on anything. Will do the exact opposite without any scrupules. It's of no use to say he promised this or that. That's not his game.
But he did give plastic straws back to the mob.
"Promises made, promises kept" 🤪
Two dumbasses downvoted this.
Well, he said he would be a dictator. On that point he did deliver. Maybe that's what these fine people were thinking of.
I will never understand how people fell for the most obvious lies from the most famous liar and grifter of our lifetimes, possibly ever
I understand that Republican party did a lot in the background to weaken education and literally blast them with propaganda 24/7, but the fact that they will continuously double down on lies that are obviously refutable to save face instead of admitting that they were wrong is so frustrating
I will never understand how people fell for the most obvious lies from the most famous liar and grifter of our lifetimes, possibly ever
Because hes giving them what they want.
Freedom to be racist, hateful assholes.
Long time ago I used to work with property developers. There was a big fire in a building. It was on the radio. Right after we had a meeting with these guys. One guy entered laughing about it. He was bragging how they had totally ignored fire regulations and nothing was done correctly. His boss shussed him, nodding to us, not to talk like that in public.
Another developer, on a different project, was talking how in France they invented the holiday home when the government introduced the 13th month salary. He bragged about how shitty the construction was ("you could simply punch your fist through the wall").
That's the kind of people that run the states now. Getting rich and bragging about who is best at ripping off people. Like this video of a wealthy guy showing off a mountain of presents under a christmas tree and addressing the camera with "See this, you poor fucks, you'll never get this"
Racism. That's why.
Voters believe him, unfortunately.
"Trump didnt enter the war! America has been at war with iran for 389 years! They attacked us first, By making George Washington only have two terms due to election interference! We're Just Finishing It!" - Deluded Right Wingers.
What are you guys talking about. This hero ended 9 wars. He has the right to start one. It's all in the name of peace and Jesus!
~/s if it wasn't obvious~
You get to trade one FIFA peace prize for one war, everyone knows this.
It's not obvious.
It was very obvious.
I think you misunderstood. I meant the sarcasm is not obvious because that's just the kind of thing dotards on his side might honestly believe.
The wording used here made it exceedingly obvious that it was sarcasm. I'm not sure how or why I would ignore the the very sarcastic wording.
Indeed. And my insinuation was that in the times we live in, such obvious things are not obvious anymore.
That's his revenge for not getting peace Nobel prize. That or to switch focus away from Epstin files. hard to tell.
Both, it's both
Well, he did say that if I voted for Harris we would get endless wars. So I guess it was all my fault....
Republicans know their shit ain't popular.
The problem was neoliberals also aren't popular.
So everyone spent 50 years voting against what they wanted to happen least, instead of ever getting to vote for what they want.
It's a consequence of Ordinal voting methods, particularly First Past the Post.
Arrow's Impossibility Theorium spells it out. https://electowiki.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
The tldr is that any ranked voting system will result in two parties.
This is really because all ranked voting systems are built around the word "Or".
You support A or B. Which means that A and B have incentive to demonize each other, because every vote for A is one less potential vote for B.
The solution is abandoning Ordinal voting for a Cardinal system.
The simplest method is Approval.
Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system where each voter may select ("approve") any number of candidates. The winner is the candidate approved by the largest number of voters. It is distinct from plurality voting, in which a voter may choose only one option among several (where the option with the most selections is declared the winner). It is related to score voting in which voters give each option a score on a scale, and the option with the highest total of scores is selected.
Another option is STAR.
It's been deliberately designed to make for better election results.
This is not a normal result...
You're falling for the propaganda from the same two groups who colluded to ensure there would never be a third.
And it took them generations to keep people to believe that. I understand you're trying to argue we should change it, and we should.
But just like capitalism doesn't have to be this bad, neither does a first past the post system, or even a two party system.
They've convinced you the only way to fix things is a complete overhaul, knowing that a significant amount of a human population would never support that no matter how bad shit gets.
Fuck man, we essentially fixed the two party system a year ago. And no one even noticed.
They want to set the bus on fire after we finally put it in reverse and started backing away from the cliff. The bus was never the problem, letting Liverne and Shirley set the course was.
I'm falling for the mathematical truth.
We've known that Ordinal voting was bad since the 1780s, The Mathematician, philosopher and Girondian, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, wrote the seminal work on it; Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix). Found here in the original French
We haven't fixed anything, because the voting method itself is broken. In any First Past the Post election, you have the Spoiler Effect, where just a few votes for a third party can guarantee that the person furthest from that candidate on the political spectrum wins. Look at Ross Perot securing Clinton's win in 1992 and Ralph Nader securing Bush's win in 2000.
None of that shit is fixed because we're still using the broken system, a system that wasn't actually ever really designed as such, it was just the default easiest way to do things and enables minority rule.
In any First Past the Post election, you have the Spoiler Effect,
No, that's only after two parties have normalized and aren't running primaries representative of their voters desires in a candidate...
It doesn't matter what someone said 250 years ago.
Like, what kind of ancestor worship does it take to think that could have been the end all discussion, and what kind of nativity does to think to not realize society has changed drastically since?
People didn't stop discussing this, and shit didn't stop changing.
Stop ready classical literature and at least get to the 20th century if not the 21st.
Oh, you want 20th century again? You didn't like it in my original comment, but back to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, proven definitively in 1950.
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice theory showing that no ranked-choice procedure for group decision-making can satisfy the requirements of rational choice.[1] Specifically, American economist Kenneth Arrow showed no such rule can satisfy independence of irrelevant alternatives, the principle that a choice between two alternatives A and B should not depend on the quality of some third, unrelated option, C.[2][3][4]
The result is often cited in discussions of voting rules,[5] where it shows no ranked voting rule can eliminate the spoiler effect.[6][7][8] This result was first shown by the Marquis de Condorcet, whose voting paradox showed the impossibility of logically-consistent majority rule; Arrow's theorem generalizes Condorcet's findings to include non-majoritarian rules like collective leadership or consensus decision-making.[1]
Then a bit later, this important part;
Rated voting rules, where voters assign a separate grade to each candidate, are not affected by Arrow's theorem.[17][18][19] Arrow initially asserted the information provided by these systems was meaningless and therefore could not be used to prevent paradoxes, leading him to overlook them.[20] However, Arrow would later describe this as a mistake,[21][22] admitting rules based on cardinal utilities (such as score and approval voting) are not subject to his theorem.[23][24]
The Spoiler Effect is when a voting system fails independence of irrelevant alternatives. This is what drives two party dominance, after all, if you're punished for voting third party, third parties become actively harmful. This is why the major support for most third parties comes from their ideological opponents. Jill Stein being super cozy with Russia and Republican donors being the key recent example.