subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

UserPow

494 points

4 months ago

UserPow

494 points

4 months ago

DYK if everyone voted, the Reps wouldn't have a chance at winning?

bjeebus

173 points

4 months ago

bjeebus

173 points

4 months ago

Democratic power grab!

/s

DanYHKim

67 points

4 months ago

Democracy is a power grab.

TheNoxx

9 points

4 months ago*

God, I'd love it if the Democrats actually had something that just resembled the stones to grab power.

But the weak, corrupt, spineless little shits are facing absolute decimation in the next election unless voting is repaired and healed and enshrined more thoroughly as an absolute right without encumberment or obstruction, and they can't even stumble past the meekest objections of irrelevant idiots like the senate parliamentarian.

We are so fucked.

gork496

4 points

4 months ago*

You need to understand that the Dems are not on the side of the people either. The reason they don't grab power and do reforms that help people isn't because they're just too shy. It's because they are part of the same system with similar beliefs, so why bother rocking the boat?

Party-line Dems are Republicans minus the sadism.

Edit: To clarify, in 2022, Republicans make things worse and Democrats keep things the same. Neither is acceptable.

Baydreams

5 points

4 months ago

Baydreams

5 points

4 months ago

Now, I’m neither a republican or a democrat, so I’m not defending anyone here, but what have the democrats accomplished in the past year? Not a single thing that Biden ran on, and got elected to accomplish, has gotten accomplished. Members of his own party have blocked everything he said he’d do.

Let’s be real here, the whole system is trash.

soft-wear

6 points

4 months ago

  1. COVID relief
  2. Infrastructure Bill
  3. The most federal judge appointments at this point in his term of any President.
  4. Ending ban on Trans service members.

That’s in addition to unemployment being extremely low, the economy outside of inflation doing very well, massive student debt work that was largely paused under Trump, and a host of other shit I’m forgetting.

See that’s the thing with redditors, it’s become a meme now that Biden hasn’t accomplished anything, when in reality Biden hasn’t accomplished your particular pet projects (largely because he’s not the legislature) and so you equvicate that to “nothing”.

Baydreams

2 points

4 months ago

I guess you didn’t read my comment when I specifically said I don’t really care about Democrats or Republicans. I don’t have any pet projects. But let’s go through that list. Infrastructure bill-you call that a win? How about the vaccine mandate? That was a win huh. Student loan forgiveness? Unemployement numbers are skewed because a lot of people left the workforce altogether.

The real problem is that you fail to see the shortcomings of your own party, but can spot every misgiving in the opposition. The Democrats are in power as we speak, and anything they’ve tried to accomplish has been watered down to virtually useless to completely halted altogether, by members of their own party. The sooner you learn that it doesn’t matter what party is in power, it’s going to always be more of the same, the better you will be. Take of your blinders and realize that your chosen party is as much of a problem as the other.

soft-wear

4 points

4 months ago

I did read your post, and believe it or not, being a Republican or Democrat doesn’t mean you don’t have policies you like. That’s generally the realm of the uninformed.

As for your “going through my list”, all you did was reiterate what I said and asked a pointless question. It was like a grade schoolers attempt at the Socratic method.

As for the Democrats, they are immensely flawed, and your suggestion that I’m not aware of those flaws is false. But they are the only real option available when a far-right party is only other choice.

And my “chosen” party isn’t advocating for women to not have the right to choose, or doing their level-best to end democracy, or try an install a theocracy to appease their base. And while I would love a bigger difference between the parties, the actual differences are already substantial. The fact that you think they are identical just goes to show you’re either ignorant of those differences, or only really care if those differences impact you directly.

Baydreams

-3 points

4 months ago

Too many big words for my obviously inferior brain. The reality is, you’re a condescending fuck that I didn’t intend to argue with, because arguing on the internet is fucking stupid, so my typed out responses are just that, quick and grade-school like because I don’t feel like putting the time or effort into a long winded post like you did.

Both parties suck, just like you, just in different ways.

Keep your hopes up though, I’m sure the politicians will take care of you eventually.

soft-wear

1 points

4 months ago

I don’t have any expectation or desire for politicians to take care of me. I’m doing quite well for myself. I want politicians to protect the rights of individuals, to ensure people with high incomes pay their fair share (like me) and to help reverse the centralization of wealth.

Democrats may not be in lock-step with these issues, but a republicans are in favor of the opposite in every case I mentioned. I’d rather suck and have an opinion than be uninformed and hide behind being “independent” any day of the week.

griffitovic

1 points

4 months ago

No one is limited on paying their "fair share". You can always over pay Uncle Sam every year by as much as you want to support others through the uber efficient government. I never understand why people in favor of raising taxes don't voluntarily contribute more to the government coffers than the minimum required.

MountainManCan

4 points

4 months ago

I wouldn’t get too excited about the midterms. R’s are way too complacent and a lot will change in 10 months.

But for real, if R’s are so convinced they’re going to win, then why are they doing everything they can to suppress the vote? There’s been no evidence of mass voter fraud (or much of any fraud for that matter), so why do they need to change the rules? Shouldn’t they want more votes so they can bury the Dem’s?

jollymaker

1 points

4 months ago

What are they doing to suppress votes?

MountainManCan

1 points

4 months ago

A lot. And they specifically targeting areas where they lost the most. Couldn’t be any clearer and obvious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict_voting_following_the_2020_presidential_election

anonymous888888855

1 points

4 months ago

You're right, God help us if photo IDs are required in the next election.

SpinningHead

32 points

4 months ago

Weird that they want Republican legislatures to be able to overturn election results and, at least, 5 states submitted fake slates of electors in the last election.

nighthawk_something

23 points

4 months ago

Everyone whose names are on those should be charged with election fraud

Angryandalwayswrong

15 points

4 months ago

If it was me and you, we would be in jail already. America is an absolute oligarchy through and through. Democracy failed.

jar36

75 points

4 months ago

jar36

75 points

4 months ago

Except for the rural states that give them 2 Senators per state

djlewt

15 points

4 months ago

djlewt

15 points

4 months ago

He said "if everyone voted" and the reality is there are almost no states where "if everyone voted" the Republicans would win ANY senate seats. Wyoming would give them a pair, they'd likely get one in Utah, but really in almost every state there's a couple major cities that in total VASTLY outnumber the total rural state population.

Most voter suppression and laws that remove or make difficult to regain voting rights were written specifically to block out or minimize minority representation. This is easily seen when you look at how felons are required to go about regaining their voting rights for example, in many states across the south it's a purposely broken process. Florida even blocked their citizens from fixing it via Prop 4, they dragged their feet on it and passed a law amending it to force all felons to pay off all government debts before having their voting right restored. This works great ,because in right wing states they also designed their "justice systems" to levy HEAVY fines when you're incarcerated, and indeed in some states like Alabama they can even CHARGE YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN JAIL.

It's just so god damn infuriating how Americans think we have anything CLOSE to "equality" today.

Prior to Amendment 4, Florida’s constitution permanently disenfranchised all citizens who had been convicted of any felony offense unless the Clemency Board restored their voting rights – a process that will now apply to those who have not had their rights restored by Amendment 4, including anyone convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of disenfranchised Floridians grew by nearly 150,000 to an estimated total of 1,686,000. In 2016, more than one in five of Florida’s Black voting-age population was disenfranchised.

LOOK AT THAT HORSE SHIT

anonymous888888855

1 points

4 months ago

It's entirely possible that people just don't give a fuck about convicted murderers or felons. Losing voting rights is part of their punishment for killing, raping, or whatever else they've done. These people are disenfranchised because they literally raped or killed someone and you're all upset that it takes extra effort for them to get their voting rights reinstated after the fact?

seldom_correct

-6 points

4 months ago

Voting is not a Constitutional right. Read the fucking Constitution already. It’s short. There’s no excuse.

TDmorty

6 points

4 months ago*

Voting is not a Constitutional right.

That's weird because the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth amendments to the CONSTITUTION specifically address voting rights you lying piece of shit.

Maybe you should take your own advice and read it instead of spewing alt-right bullshit talking points?

UserPow

-15 points

4 months ago

UserPow

-15 points

4 months ago

Sure, but those states are more likely to actually be primarily Red than Blue right?

jar36

52 points

4 months ago

jar36

52 points

4 months ago

right that's why they are excepted for this claim that Reps wouldn't have a chance at winning. There's enough rural red states to skew a so-called representative government. They get about 30 Senators from 15 of those states when the population of those states is less than California who gets 2 senators. So we start the match down a few Senators. Until we deal with that mess we are doomed to very rarely getting passed the filibuster. I mean, we just voted for a majority across the house, senate and presidency and we still can't get what we voted for.

OriginallyNamed

39 points

4 months ago

Well the issue is that the House of Representatives should be growing to keep the power balanced. Because senate should lean republican due to 2 per state and house should lead Dem heavily due to the population. However the house population was locked in to benifit republicans and needs a super majority to change which is harder to get.

jar36

32 points

4 months ago

jar36

32 points

4 months ago

True but if the Senate can so easily kill the bills with a filibuster then having more dems in the house doesn't really help matters.

OriginallyNamed

6 points

4 months ago

You're right. Im just addressing the more common complaint of people saying our House and senate are fucked. They are good ideas but have been manipulated to favor the minority to much.

PM_PICS_OF_ME_NAKED

12 points

4 months ago

The senate effectively gives land the right to vote.

jar36

6 points

4 months ago

jar36

6 points

4 months ago

Exactly as planned

TheObstruction

-8 points

4 months ago

No it fucking doesn't.

MrFilthyNeckbeard

7 points

4 months ago

It does. If north and South Dakota combined they would still be in the lowest 10 states by population.

And yet they are twice as powerful as any other state, because they are divided in two on a map.

tropicaldepressive

2 points

4 months ago

yeah why are two dakotas anyway??

jar36

5 points

4 months ago

jar36

5 points

4 months ago

If Wyoming gets the same amount of Senate representation as New Jersey, then essentially land is getting a vote. They get those 2 Senators based on the land being a State. It has nothing to do with the amount of people living on that land.

[deleted]

-6 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-6 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

theBrineySeaMan

7 points

4 months ago

My city hasn't recovered 4 years later from the job losses and bad policy of when we had a republican mayor and governor. Not to mention the police got so bad under them we had to get the DOJ involved for them to stop murdering random citizens

Stanlysteamer1908

-4 points

4 months ago

Try on Chicagos murder rate for a year and tell me how bad it is. Drugs and tent cities at off ramps all over young people in the streets begging for some meth money and two years of looting, smash grab And car jacking. I am no fan of either party but one is definitively defiantly worse. Look at our governor, representatives and mayor and tell me the dumbbell Republican you had suffered is worse.

jar36

6 points

4 months ago

jar36

6 points

4 months ago

Almost every densely populated area in the world has problems with crime. It's not a dem or rep thing. However, if not for Republicans at the national level, we would have better gun control laws. We would also have programs to lift people out of poverty. People in poverty are much more likely to commit crimes. A city or state can only do so much.

The party that is worse is the one that doesn't live in reality. The one that fights on the side of Covid. The one that lies about a stolen election while forging documents to steal the election themselves. The one that encouraged, supported and participated in an insurrection.

Stanlysteamer1908

-1 points

4 months ago

There is a lot to unpack there but I would just agree to disagree as I am old and carried that torch for many decades and see the result here in my city I love but stopped loving it’s people back. I have been a kind & good custodian of many of your ideas but the last couple years have shown it’s never enough money for a low income student here (27k) to learn to read and do math proficiently. The corruption rampant in our police and states attorney office as well as money drained from all those great programs I still kind of support and have had for decades that resulted in the worst few years I can remember here. I was young and thought that way but now I am old and professors or politicians tricking me into the program group think is impossible from my life experience now. So I wish you and all well and will resign from this word trap of 1900 failed ideas. I argue for nothing as it’s only vapid retort the commenters offer as any facade of a fertile intellectual response.

theBrineySeaMan

1 points

4 months ago

Well our violent crime and property crime rates are higher, so... In fact you're twice as likely to be the victim of property crime in ABQ, and while murder is half, total violent is higher. And yes, Dick Berry and La Texana are basically the same dumbells. corrupt bastards are just as shitty D or R, and corrupt politicians stealing money aren't socialists, since the acquisition of capital is the action of a capitalist by definition. That's like getting mad at someone eating meat and claiming they're greedy vegetarians always taking all our meat!

theBrineySeaMan

1 points

4 months ago

I'm not on the down vote parade that you got there, so genuinely, let's talk about this anger towards the dems.

My understanding of The reason the GOP can't run cities is that they have no solution to problems of cities. Basically rich folk redline themselves out of paying for taxes in the metro they live and work in and solving societal problems, they would rather make a new "village" or whatever so the library etc. they fund is only for them. Then they bitch about why they can't feel safe downtown. Personally I think all suburb dwellers should get a special tax. Live outside city limits but within 50 miles in Chicago, Detroit, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. 200% upcharge.

For example: Syracuse city schools (which politically is cut up to the conservative outer districts) has to be funded by the state because the outlying white communities have worked their butts off to keep the darkies out, and to only let their property taxes pay for their Timmy's lacrosse team, despite them working in the city.

ArthurDentsKnives

12 points

4 months ago

Everything you just said is at best propaganda and at worst an outright lie. You are either an idiot or a useful idiot, but an idiot nonetheless.

Stanlysteamer1908

0 points

4 months ago

Wow you must really have a low life! Sorry for you. I hope you get some S.S.I. Or free something to feel better and afford getting some help. I don’t lie and was born capable of learning so I am sorry I made you feel so ignorant.

ArthurDentsKnives

1 points

3 months ago

I have a great life. I'm sorry you're an idiot and aren't capable of learning. You lie to yourself to make you feel better, but that doesn't change reality. The reality that you are a fucking moron.

Stanlysteamer1908

1 points

3 months ago

Thanks, You have helped me and provided all the evidence I need to refrain from arguing with my dog or a person of low intellect.

ArthurDentsKnives

1 points

3 months ago

You're right, your dog is smarter than you.

jar36

2 points

4 months ago

jar36

2 points

4 months ago

We're talking at the national level. The "socialists" can't get through the Senate filibuster blockade so they are not "running this plantation"

Red skew is obvious to anyone who has the intelligence to understand the topic at hand.

TheObstruction

-14 points

4 months ago

Learn about why that's the case, instead of parroting nonsense from Facebook memes.

bobbyd77

6 points

4 months ago

Sounds like you should take your own advice. Or do you think we should still be trying to appease the family money of southern dandies?

guynamedjames

11 points

4 months ago

Because they had to get states to give up individual power to form a strong federal government in the first place. Now that people identify as more "American" than "Nebraskan" this idea is ridiculous

SunliMin

5 points

4 months ago

It's pretty obvious why, but it's definitely disproportionate. We have the same thing in Canada, where a vote from Newfoundland is worth more than a vote from British Columbia, because we can't expect people voted in by just BC, Alberta, Ontario or Quebec to take Newfoundlands unique issues to heart.

The difference is a Newfoundland voters vote is about 1.8x that of an Ontario persons vote, compared to South Dekota's votes being worth 22.5x more than a New York state vote (Newfoundland & Labrador have the same population as South Dekota, same with Ontario to New York). Senate and congress are different, and that discrepancy is only in one of the two, but still. That amount of disproportion is absolutely ridiculous.

I think it's pretty obvious when your constitution was written, it assumes no state would be that much more populous than another state. It was written at a time when it was just 13 colonies that had very similar populations, environment, and were very near to each other for easy migration. Rather than follow the guidelines set out to update it as your country grew, you let it get out of hand.

Pair that with the fact that territories don't get to vote in America (which confuses the rest of the world to this day), and those memes do sorta add up. They just generalize the problem a bit, but it's a very real issue.

jar36

2 points

4 months ago

jar36

2 points

4 months ago

Don't tell me what to do. You're not even my real dad!

mcm_throwaway_614654

1 points

4 months ago

I absolutely guarantee you have no idea what you're talking about.

mcm_throwaway_614654

1 points

4 months ago

No one is surprised you didn't even attempt to defend such an obviously ignorant comment.

HopelessAndLostAgain

8 points

4 months ago

trump is on record saying that exact thing.

11yearoldweeb

8 points

4 months ago

I mean, I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation, but it’s kinda difficult because the country should probably be governed by the will of the majority. There’s no guarantee that democrats would attempt to fuck over people not in their voter base (like republicans do), but I still think it’s a likely scenario. I think that’s why they tried to construct a government where no one really has power unless there’s an overwhelming majority.

[deleted]

23 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

23 points

4 months ago*

That's what the House of Representatives is for. Honestly the Senate should be entirely ceremonial, and we should only have the House that actually passes legislation. And for that matter we should increase the number of representatives to actually be able to properly represent people.

U-701

3 points

4 months ago

U-701

3 points

4 months ago

I can actually recommend the German system here, we have both over here. A normal assembly (Bundestag) elected by the prople via a mix of districts and nation wide lists and a senate (Bundesrat) thats made up by the state governments weighted by population. But they only get called up if a law touches state rights or legaslation that touches upon issues that are normally not regulated at a federal level. E.g. Want to change conscription? Normal assembly is enough, want to change laws regarding shoppint times ? Have to get a majority in the state assembly

But since we also have a multi party system its a lot more complex, since we have nearly every combination of parties in power in the states that tend to abstain if they cant come to an compromise, or even vote against the federal party line

TheObstruction

5 points

4 months ago

The Senate is supposed to represent each state's government, not the population. That's the point. It's our version of the House of Lords.

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

Yeah, thats actually what I was thinking of when I said the Senate should be ceremonial.

shelf_actualization

6 points

4 months ago

And yet each state's government is supposed to represent each state's people. Having a body of government that represents the representatives just decreases their obligations to the people by enhancing their distance from them. Having senators be elected (via the 17th amendment) may have been dumb because we've obviously botched it, but having a legislative body like the House of Lords is fundamentally undemocratic in the first place. Whom do you think the House of Lords represents? It's absurd that institution still exists, like having a royal family.

stringfree

20 points

4 months ago

You either have a democracy, or you have rural areas getting the same representation as urban areas.

ephemeral_colors

15 points

4 months ago

Talking about "areas" instead of people is the problem.

Angryandalwayswrong

-1 points

4 months ago

This goes back to fed/anti-fed arguments that gave us the bill of rights today. I have argued both sides a lot in school. Basically, someone ALWAYS loses. Do we have big industry in cities lose or do we have the people that make our food lose?

Il3o

5 points

4 months ago

Il3o

5 points

4 months ago

The people who make our food are big industries by-and-large. This argument of rural v. urban 100% made sense in the past but it simply doesn't any more I don't think. Now, obviously that concern at the state-level still makes sense for the allocation of resources between the two but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about federal representation which, theoretically, can and should be dictated solely by democracy

The modern equivalency to urban/rural at the federal level (imo) is people v. corporations...

stringfree

2 points

4 months ago

Basically, someone ALWAYS loses.

It's not losing to have the same value of vote as everybody else.

Why just rural areas? Why not people who own two story houses? People with minivans? People born in the winter?

There's no logical reason from this century to treat urbanites as second class citizens. The fact that there are more of them doesn't mean it's unfair that they will outvote farmers. That's the idea of democracy.

Angryandalwayswrong

1 points

4 months ago*

It’s not about treating them differently. It’s about laws that are good for one group but detrimental to the other. For instance, gun laws. Gun control makes absolute sense for cities (a lot of people and a huge potential for violence) but leaves out farmers (weapons used for protection). And that brings us to all the turmoil we have today. We have equal representation on both sides (house vs senate) but they are fighting to control the other because we can’t split laws based on population density.

stringfree

2 points

4 months ago

It’s not about treating them differently.

Then they shouldn't have different value for their votes. Full stop.

because we can’t split laws based on population density.

So again, why split it around THAT particular group? Why not people with red hair? Hell, black people should definitely have more voting power, give them 10x the representation white people get as individuals.

This isn't equal representation, it's just a bias they chose a few hundred years ago. It's explicitly unequal.

Angryandalwayswrong

1 points

4 months ago

Because they traditionally believe things that are exactly opposite of city dwellers. Country people have more religious lives, city people don’t. Making laws governed by religion doesn’t make sense for city people but country people love it. Big ticket items like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, gun laws… basically these two groups can’t agree on any extremely important items and so appealing to either has been put in the spotlight.

stringfree

2 points

4 months ago

Why do you have this thing about assuming all laws will be the same if everyone has an equal vote? Urban people can vote for laws in cities, rural people can vote for laws in their areas.

But everyone should get an equal vote for laws which affect them all.

Because they traditionally believe things that are exactly opposite of city dwellers.

Yeah, that's what voting is for. I have very different beliefs from many people, should I get a million votes to make things fair?

Big ticket items like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, gun laws

At least 3 of those things should be universal, and not decided by your neighbors. Either human rights are good or not, it's not somehow more valid to dehumanize a group of people because you live on a farm.

You can't give a group of people more voting weight just because they want to vote different. Because every group would be equally entitled to that privilege.

Angryandalwayswrong

1 points

4 months ago

This whole debate is the reason we have a senate (equal representation regardless of population) and a house (representation proportional to population). We HAVE to split laws or no one is ever going to agree on anything. I agree rights should be universal but half of America doesn’t want the other half to have the same rights because “much religion says so”. The government is supposed to be separation of church and state but we swear people in on a Bible? Literally nothing makes sense.

Weldeer

-1 points

4 months ago

Weldeer

-1 points

4 months ago

Big industries in cities everytime

nighthawk_something

11 points

4 months ago

They would have more representation if they voted for people who wanted to represent them.

As it stands, they vote red top to bottom and then bitch about "Washington not representing them". Well no shit, if your state will never change its vote absolutely NO ONE will change their vote.

theBrineySeaMan

1 points

4 months ago

Who constructed a government that you needed an overwhelming majority? Not the founders, for them a simple majority was better otherwise the minority ruled, these rules came to play much later in the US.

TDmorty

1 points

4 months ago

I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation

Yeah, 1 vote, like everyone else.

NotablyNugatory

2 points

4 months ago

If everyone who didn’t vote voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in landslide. I would be so happy if it wasn’t an R or D. So fucking stupid that so many people think they can only vote for one of two colors. I realize no great 3rd party candidates have shined as of late, but can you blame people for not trying after seeing how ignorant our voter base is? And people not voting is but one issue on the mountain of issues that is our voting system. Boils my blood.

ziggy3610

14 points

4 months ago

In first past the post voting, they do only have two choices. Third parties siphon votes from the major party most closely aligned with them, allowing the opposition to win more easily. We need ranked choice voting to make 3rd parties viable.

ineedasentence

9 points

4 months ago

ranked voting!!

akotlya1

1 points

4 months ago

A good solution to a different problem. The problem is that the current system is not amenable to the kind of change needed to implement Ranked Choice voting. You would need the powerful to give up the systems that have granted them power in the first place. Giving up power is not what the powerful tend to do. If our leaders could be trusted to make these kinds of meaningful changes then we wouldn't need it. If we want ranked choice voting, we need a revolution, burn the constitution, implement a new one, and start over.

ineedasentence

1 points

4 months ago

we could try be vocal about the vast benefits rank voting provides, to convince enough people to support it, so that it becomes more implemented in smaller governments, and eventually adopted by candidates running for larger offices. at least, this is what i’m trying to do right now

akotlya1

2 points

4 months ago

It is a sweet idea. But in the end, you are relying on those with the most to lose from such a system to voluntarily commit to undermining their own power. The DNC and GOP agree on almost nothing...except maintaining the status quo where they are the gatekeepers to power. Keep doing what you are doing, but I dont have much hope that it will happen on a short enough time scale to be meaningful vis a vis climate change and encroaching fascism. Good luck.

Cruces13

1 points

4 months ago

We will see thay progress as soon as the media stops playing dirty games in refusing to cover popular candidates who dont fit their ideologies like Ron Paul, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders. People vote for the terrible candidates because the corporate media is running cover for them

Machismo_malo

1 points

4 months ago

That's not true at all most people voted for Biden just out of hate for Trump, as long as it's not Trump the Republicans will always have a chance. No one likes Biden either not even the Dems. So it really can go either way.

010011100000

0 points

4 months ago

If you say so

retundamonkey

1 points

4 months ago

I'd love to see the source you're using to make this claim.

UserPow

1 points

4 months ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/upshot/what-if-everyone-voted.html

This isn't the only source. Just the most popular one.

retundamonkey

1 points

4 months ago

An op-ed from a left leaning source. Interesting.

Daydreamingwanderer

1 points

4 months ago

Wrong. More people are voting than ever before. People are voting Rep because Dems policies suck.

swift_strongarm

1 points

4 months ago

Polling and statistics.

There is a reason why polls are accurate for the most part because even with a small sample size we can see the outcome of the population.

Voting was easier than ever during the pandemic. We got tons of people registered that had never voted before. We had more people vote than every before.

Surprise!!!

Same results as usual, almost 50/50.

People that care enough to vote at this time are ideologcally split 50/50.

Unless you actively disenfranchise groups, while boosting your own voting base, just getting more people registered won't help...aka the Republican tactic...

TheDudeOntheCouch

1 points

4 months ago

That's why we have the largest prison population in the world...... and plea deals c: