Summary
In his farewell speech, President Joe Biden warned of a growing “oligarchy” in the U.S., where extreme wealth and power threaten democracy.
Comparing modern elites to 19th-century robber barons, he called for reforms to hold the wealthy accountable, as done in the past.
Biden also criticized a “tech-industrial complex” concentrating power and spreading disinformation, weakening democracy.
His remarks sparked a surge in Google searches for “oligarchy.”
The speech comes amid rising concerns about policies favoring billionaires, like Trump’s tax cuts and potential cuts to social safety programs.
That’s why I used the word “solidly.”
Some of them? Sure. Maybe not all of them. But it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion. I was just making the claim that your math was including some voters that had no possible effect on Trump getting elected. And I still think that’s the case whether or not a number of people in purple states decided not to vote because Harris didn’t really speak to the economic realities they face everyday. Now we’re just quibbling over how wrong your math is.
To your broader point about the popular vote: I agree that people not voting or voting 3rd party impacts the popular vote, and the popular vote is indeed often used as a proxy for a national mandate. But Trump didn’t even break 50% on the popular vote—hardly a Reagan-style sweeping mandate despite initial reports to the contrary. So in this particular election, your point doesn’t even come into play. You’re calling people idiots for how they voted because of a theoretical outcome that didn’t occur.
Yes, voting in the U.S. is basically harm reduction. But what’s the point of voting to reduce harm if it doesn’t actually have much chance of doing that in your state? To be clear, I’m not advocating not voting. I’m advocating giving people a little grace if, via their vote, they didn’t materially contribute to the rise of fascism or whatever. In fact, you could say that someone voting third party in a solidly blue state has just as much impact on the election as someone voting blue in a solidly red one. It’s just numbers.
Cool. That still doesn’t absolve them from being idiots for not voting or voting for a candidate that literally, as in literally, cannot win.
I didn’t say they did. I said they were idiots. My math was calculating how many idiots there are in America to determine how fucked we are. And I stand by my math.
But he still won the popular vote. The first Republican to do so in 20 years. Which alters the discussion about the will of the people not wanting Republican leadership. And non-voters and 3rd party voters helped to make that happen.
Lol. No I’m not. I’m calling non-voters idiots for not exercising their right to vote, which people throughout history have killed and died for. I’m calling 3rd party presidential voters idiots for voting for a candidate that LITERALLY CANNOT WIN. Those are both decidedly idiotic things to do. And again, my math is calculating how many idiots are in America, using this election as a litmus test. And I’m stating those idiots affected the popular vote, which they did. And I’m stating that, for all they knew when they made their idiotic decision, they were making the difference between who won.
Your logic is like saying “well, the boy threw the kitchen knife at his sister, but it didn’t end up eviscerating her, so let’s just drop the subject and let the boy off scott free”. Again, they went into the election, making their stupid decisions, not knowing if they were going to make that difference or not. That is some idiot shit.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. We’re not even on the same page in terms of first principles. A voter voting blue in a red state is voting for a candidate who literally cannot win, and by your logic they’d be an idiot too. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. People should be able to vote how they want—especially if their vote isn’t likely to sway the election.