Gore’s VP (Joe)? I don’t remember all of the details, but that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers, not by a sore loser. Won the popular by a decent margin but lost the electoral. It was by a slim enough margin to trigger a recount. As far as contested elections go I thought that could have gone a whole lot worse.
I’m not sure I get the comparison here.
Democracy is perfectly fine until the candidate that loses refuses to accept the results, tries to retain power by force, then continues to try undermine faith in democracy for 4 years and is somehow still the frontrunner for his party.
There is a disconnect between the statistics and reality. I am not sure where, but I suspect inflation is not being calculated correctly. It may be that lower cost items rose at a higher rate, so even though it averages out, it’s harder to reduce spending. 17% doesn’t seem to match the numbers I’ve seen for take out and home prices for example.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what’s on a chart it matters how many things people had to choose to not buy or do because they couldn’t afford it.
Removed by mod
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. Either way, this is definitely the message that’s being broadcasted on loop in a lot of places, especially here. On the surface it seems to be trying to convince swing voters to lean left. If that’s the case, it very much misses the mark. I’m not positive that this is a US specific message, but that is my perspective.
I had a much longer rant typed out, but it wasn’t terribly constructive. The long and short of it is that we have a lot of problems that need to be addressed in this world that have yet to even be acknowledged (and thus no solutions proposed) because they are being drowned out by the handful of arguments that are the most emotionally charged and thus, least productive to debate. Every election has been a “race to the bottom” and every year it starts earlier, lasts longer, and gets stupider. That is to say, there is no intellectual consideration whatsoever. It is no longer a discussion about governance, it is a cheerleading mantra for a sports team. The arguments are all emotionally charged and feel more like propaganda than discussion - this is what “both sides” are guilty of. The candidates don’t even bother to show up to debates anymore, and it doesn’t seem to make a difference.
I have my opinion about who is the worst option, but that does nothing to convince someone looking for a reason to vote **for ** someone, not **against ** someone.
Removed by mod
Google what exactly? I made everything up myself, you’re claiming it’s, an advertisement for, what, exactly? There’s no real companies even mentioned. There’s a radio station that comes up in British Columbia that’s close, but not the same frequency.
So you’ve made a claim, and now you’re putting the burden of proof on me. That’s the kind of conspiracy theory BS that we need to leave on reddit. I’ll look around, but I know you’re full of shit, because I am the author. Share your citations.
I was waiting for someone to spot that.
BS . I made this from scratch after watching a music video I thought was funny.
I guess we’ll see how much worse that is than being raised by good ol’ fashion network television.
Well, traditional news sources have lowered the bar enough that social media isn’t really much worse in a lot of cases. Especially considering how many “news” there is about social media content; it makes it seem that something like Twitter is the “source” that the news is citing. The lines have been blurred, seemingly intentionally so it’s hard to blame people for not having a good barometer who grew up in an ecosystem of generalized enshitification.
It’s also the fact that if everyone stops using AM, the RFI pollution from EVs and other tech will balloon even more than it already has. Those frequencies are used for a lot more than just emergencies. I’d bet the push for this came from the military or the FCC.