Stop slandering Orangutans. That’s a candid shot of a fine gentleman.
Comparing them to MTG is a horrific action.
solsangraal 108 points a year ago path: 0 18014764, hotness: undefined, score: 108, children: 20
FundMECFSResearch 49 points a year ago
RampageDon 43 points a year ago
Isn't this a howler monkey? Point still stand though.
FundMECFSResearch 12 points a year ago
You’re probably right. I don’t know my monkeys very well.
SoleInvictus 18 points a year ago
Clearly, for the orangutan is an ape!🤦
/s, just teasing, although it IS an ape, just like my mother.
Tollana1234567 8 points a year ago
that is actually a howler monkey, orangutans are actually quiet.
sugar_in_your_tea 7 points a year ago
As an enjoyer of Magic: The Gathering, I think her sharing the same acronym is a horrific action.
piranhaconda 4 points a year ago
Lol that's what my brain thinks every time, it always takes me a second to get past the "why is everyone so mad at magic??" (Aside from obscene prices, but that's why I just print fake cards for casual play)
solsangraal 4 points a year ago path: 0 18014764 18016368 18017481, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
Aimeeloulm 2 points a year ago path: 0 18014764 18016368 18017481 18031368, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
CarbonIceDragon 3 points a year ago
I interpreted it as "sarcastically pretending to be shocked by something that isn't really surprising", rather than a comparison to MTG
solsangraal 4 points a year ago path: 0 18014764 18016368 18016420 18017478, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
chuckleslord 5 points a year ago
Nattō then
UsernameHere 68 points a year ago
Both sides are same /s
UnderpantsWeevil 12 points a year ago
"Entitlement Reform" has been a watchword in both parties going back to the Reagan Administration.
Democrats will tell you they've got an innovative exciting new solution to slow the rate at which health care costs rise, then shift a bunch of public sector money over to private sector subsidies.
Republicans will tell you they're cutting fat out of the system, then transform a bunch of public sector spending into private sector tax breaks.
Healthcare gets more expensive and less accessible. Each team blames the other one. A few socialists in some of the bluer states suggest we try a public Medicare-for-All model, then get primaried out of office in the next cycle by a pack of lobbyists in blue waist coats.
"Ah, but the pawl and the gear are clearly two different components doing separate things!" I cry, to any sucker who will listen.
Donjuanme 15 points a year ago
Don't work, Daddy musk is here to make a 3rd party which will toxify the potential of any legitimate 3rd party, and we will continue on with the same system.
If their plan for not having elections at all doesn't come to fruition
UnderpantsWeevil 4 points a year ago
I, for one, am excited to see him Billionaire Blowout himself on a scale not seen since Bloomberg hemorrhaged $1B during the 2020 Primaries to come in fourth place.
SoleInvictus 4 points a year ago
Oh no, I can absolutely see him starting a DOGE Party. He has enough money to entirely bankroll it himself. I wish he wasn't such a dipshit man child; he's in a position to do so much good, yet just makes everything he touches worse.
SatansMaggotyCumFart 0 points a year ago
which will toxify the potential of any legitimate 3rd party
Third parties are only not toxic when they are big enough to be a main party and at that time they are too full of corruption to be any good.
homesweethomeMrL 2 points a year ago
This guy cynics
Zink 2 points a year ago
It doesn’t always feel that clean cut to me. I’m not arguing that you are wrong. You are absolutely correct! You are describing a huge problem.
But our stupid voting system is another problem that serves to keep that first one in place. Small uprisings against the two party system might be noticed but they will be filtered out. To change the system it seems there has to be widespread and persistent discontent and rebellion well beyond what we’re already seeing. We’re definitely moving in that direction though, for better or worse.
That stupid voting system means that if you are going to support a third party with good ideas, you must necessarily withdraw your support from whichever of the pawl and gear you prefer to the other. Enter ranked choice, star, etc.
So in an election like 2024 when it comes time to cast the actual vote, I’m left thinking: So what if I take my finger off the pawl there, and what we thought was a gear starts spinning like a buzz saw and cuts my fucking leg off?
I guess going loopy from blood loss while I point my femoral artery at people like a garden hose and find ultimate rest knowing I was right about the system sure beats dying from nuclear winter.
So that’s what so many can’t ignore when it comes time to choose. Yeah if we elected Harris we’d be living in a country of capitalism and inequality, with Israel doing horrors under our wing. It wouldn’t be a good outcome.
But compare it with what we got. I’m just some employed straight white father living in suburban nowheresville USA, but I would very much rather my government didn’t have a gestapo, or bomb Iran, or sell access & secrets, or leave NATO, or support fossil fuels, or work against green energy, or round up people who have been living a peaceful productive life and destroy those lives by the thousands because they are ethnically undersirable to the base.
UsernameHere 2 points a year ago
Voters chose the option furthest right so the government shifted right. This happens every time the left most option isn’t chosen.
UnderpantsWeevil 6 points a year ago
Voters chose the option furthest right
Politicians picked their voters in order to guarantee this outcome. Gerrymandering, mass disenfranchisement along social and ethnic lines, vote caging, intimidation, misinformation, straight up sabotage of voting venues... It happens all the time in liberal democracies, particularly in poorer, more homogeneous, and more rural neighborhoods.
As soon as the politicians fuck up on the math and a socialist breaks through (as with AOC beating Crowley back in '18 or Mamdani trouncing Cuomo last week), you get to see the "moderates" and their conservative cats' paws rush in to subvert the popular will.
This happens every time the left most option isn’t chosen.
The joke is how quickly a government will move to the right when the left-most option is chosen.
homesweethomeMrL 1 point a year ago
Show your work.
burgerpocalyse -1 points a year ago path: 0 18014739 18015768 18017038, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
ThePantser -4 points a year ago
It is looking like that more and more. If they don't fight back they are complacent and the same.
thejoker954 -8 points a year ago
You do realize that when (most) people say that - they don't mean they are identical.
Serial killers are the 'same' while having completely different methods.
glimse 27 points a year ago
They say that to dissuade you from voting for either which then secures the win for the SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE CANDIDATE every time.
Your analogy is stupid and reductive. Sure, they have a lot in common - they're both human, too. But even though I was never a fan of Harris myself, calling them "the same" is beyond idiotic.
Anyone who promotes non-voting or third parties in a plurality election is a self-important moron. Thanks for helping elect Trump, fuckos. And a special fuck you to Jill Stein.
UnderpantsWeevil -3 points a year ago
They say that to dissuade you from voting
I voted in 2000 for a compromise candidate, because I was told "Voting for the Green Party is a waste". The worse guy still won.
I voted in 2002 for a conservative democrat, because "liberals don't play well in Texas". The worse guy still won.
In 2004, Dean was too loud at a rally, so we had to elect the bumbling wanna-be Kennedy in his place. The worse guy won.
I campaigned for a billionaire in 2006, because "we need a party that is business friendly". The worse guy still won.
I rallied for the Obama campaign in 2008, because "the arc of history bends towards progress". Dodged a bullet with McCain, but still ended up with Mitt Romney's health care plan, no immigration reform, and no climate change bill in spite of a 60/40 Senate and a 30 vote lead in the House. Gitmo remained open. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on, while we bombed Libya and wrote Israel a blank check to fuck up Lebanon and Palestine. Flint had a water crisis and we did nothing. Police went open season on black men and we did nothing. Sheriff's deputies in LA formed gangs and we did nothing. Mega-banks scammed millions of people out of their homes with robo-signing and other frauds, and we did nothing.
Then 2010 and 2012 and 2014, things went back to worse again. Every milquetoast moderate candidate hemorrhaging more voters than the last. Every effort to rally the "moderate Republicans" was rebuffed. Every rejection of unserious candidates failed to yield a party willing to fight for any kind of progressive policy.
2016, we were told not to vote for Bernie Sanders because he was too radical.
2018, we were told not to vote for AOC or Cori Bush or Ilhan Omar because they were too radical.
2020, we were told not to vote for Bernie Sanders, again, because he was still too radical.
2022, we were told to moderate. Joe Biden was too radical. We needed to de-Woke the party.
2024, it was the anti-genocide leftist tankies and the transgender athletics extremists who cost liberals the election. If only we'd listened to Liz Cheney...
But now we've got a fresh crop of progressive left wing candidates. DSA has never been more active. We've got Kate Kat Abughazaleh for Illinois' Ninth District. We've got Mamdani as the frontrunner for New York Mayor. Over a third of the LA city council is DSA-aligned. Plenty of reasons to go out and vote.
But will we have a Democratic Party that feels the same way? Idk. Seems like they are eager to surrender and we're being told to hold our noses, support the same crop of losers who have been fucking up for the last 25 years, and to stop fighting the cold embrace of a dead democracy.
There are people I can't support on those terms.
glimse 6 points a year ago
Protest voting is just fighting the symptom of the problem. The real problem is our voting system and changing that starts at the bottom.
The solution hasn't changed since since you became politically active. I'm working in a campaign to bring RCV to my local elections right now which, even if it fails, will have done more good for the country than skipping out on the 2024 election because bOtH sIdEs
Protest voters need to get their heads checked. The majority would rather smugly watch the world burn than actually do anything - aside from trying to convince everyone else to join them.
waterSticksToMyBalls 8 points a year ago
Can you please help us survive in America
Dems: no, we can't figure out politics 🏳️🌈
Reps: no, we're building Auschwitz
ZombiFrancis 11 points a year ago
What sucks here is she opposes Trump's bill.
ThisDayForwardBetty 67 points a year ago
She says she opposes it after voting for it. Don’t let her off the hook.
ZombiFrancis 7 points a year ago
Oh indeed: that's part of what really makes this curdle.
Tollana1234567 3 points a year ago
muroskwi said the same thing
MimicJar 27 points a year ago
She voted for the bill in the House, then came out against it stating that she didn't know the bill limited AI regulation.
The bill then went to the Senate where the provisions limiting AI regulation were removed, and then passed.
The House will once again vote on the bill, which now does not restrict AI regulation.
She hasn't made any statement but presumably she now supports the bill, given her only complaint about it has been removed.
Tollana1234567 5 points a year ago
i have a feeling she was going to support the bill anyways, she wanted some way to not take the blame for supporting the bbb as a whole.
MimicJar 3 points a year ago
I agree that is the most likely, same as the Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Although she didn't even have the decency (?) to say which part she didn't like, she just said it wasn't ready, but still voted for it.
To quote her directly,
“And I’ve been here quite a while, and you all know I’ve got a few battle scars underneath me. But I think I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this.”
So in true Republican fashion she gets hers, so fuck everyone else. Of course the small victories in no way offset the amount of damage done by the bill at large. But now she can campaign that she "Fought for Alaska" while screwing over everyone, including Alaskans.
Tollana1234567 3 points a year ago
she has forgotten about alaska, the parlimentarian removed her carveouts.
sugar_in_your_tea 2 points a year ago
she didn’t know the bill limited AI regulation
Why vote for a bill that you haven't read? If I was a rep and didn't have time to reasonably understand a bill, I'd knee-jerk vote no.
Tempus_Fugit 15 points a year ago
She'll fall in line like the rest of the spineless Reps.
Bytemeister 2 points a year ago
Like the rest of them, she voted for it, then had her staffers read it and they found something she didn't like, so she complained.
This fucking missing link should not be in congress.
psycho_driver 10 points a year ago
That was actually just one of the mating calls of the Samsquanch
SoftestSapphic 7 points a year ago
Damn it's a shame they didn't put in any protections against gutting these essential programs.
surph_ninja -5 points a year ago
GOP wants to kill it. Democrats want to privatize it. Both are an enemy of the people.
SoftestSapphic -13 points a year ago
Weird that he knew all this would happen but did nothing to mitigate it.
Almost like the Democrats let the Republicans do their dirty work for them.
RoamingWanderer 16 points a year ago
democrats don't help the middle class
"Why won't the Dems do something?! Shame on them!"
Republicans does something that actively hurts the middle class
"Why won't the Dems do something?! Shame on them!"
SoftestSapphic 5 points a year ago
If you don't expect Republicans to be shit by now you're a fool.
I expect Democrats to be sensible and perform meaningful opposition to the corruption of the Republican party, but they can't or won't.
I want to be able to support a party that opposes wealth inequality and the working class, but there isn't one right now.
Alwaysnownevernotme -2 points a year ago
Hillary explicitly supported the Trump campaign because she thought he was the only candidate more vile than her.
Alwaysnownevernotme 1 point a year ago
Google pied piper strategy 2016.
There are literally hundreds of articles on it. It's a strategy they are still employing. The Democrats accelerationism is completely out of control.
explodicle 4 points a year ago
path: 0 18018896 18019157 18019333 18019880 18030908, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
SoftestSapphic -4 points a year ago
It really comes down to if you blame the scorpion or the frog?
Both are responsible for the outcome imo.
It's in Republicans nature to be destructive and selfish. There's supposed to be another party that meaningfully opposes that.
SoftestSapphic 1 point a year ago
One of those two people are democrats, and the democratic party actively fights progressives.
Just look at how much more they fought that NYC mayor canidate who beat out the establishment favorite in the primary.
The DNC continues to show it is an establishment party, people will continue to become disillusioned with them as long as they keep failing to make meaningful tangible change.
Soulg -2 points a year ago
There are so very many actual things wrong with the Democrat party but if you're actually stupid enough to think that they wanted what the Republicans just did you need to shut the fuck up forever and never vote in any election ever again. It's inexcusable levels of dipshit, even farther than the pro Israel crowd.
SoftestSapphic 2 points a year ago
I don't support the bill.
I'm just saying it how it is.
The Democrats do not meaningfully oppose the Republicans.
After witnessing it my whole life I have to assume it's by choice.
agedlikemilk
@sh.itjust.works
438
24
3
A community dedicated to all those things in media and elsewhere that didn’t stand the test of time, at all.
go to feed...
agedlikemilk
@sh.itjust.works
438
24
3
A community dedicated to all those things in media and elsewhere that didn’t stand the test of time, at all.
go to feed...
Jean-Paul Sartre said it best I think.
"Never believe that anti-Semites [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
save