That anger is extremely misdirected. You demand unity behind your political candidates, from people who refuse to support them on account of them seeing absolutely horrendous flaws that you refuse to see yourselves.
Why would a mass murderer deserve unity behind them, but a non-mass-murderer doesn’t? The fact that you’ve arrived at that conclusion at all demonstrates the absolutely bankruptcy of your political reasoning - the things that we’re trying to achieve with a social system in the first place are sacrificed. Human life, economic equality, quality of life, all of it.
You’ve lost sight of the entire goal. That’s the logic of drug addiction - chasing a high, diminishing returns, at the cost of your health. You’re continually investing in something which provides you worse and worse outcomes, and refusing to acknowledge alternate choices.
Any reasonable person would reason with the points I addressed against that point in my previous comment, instead of just restating the premise. Just repeating what has already been said when somebody points out the problem with it is literally the definition of “unreasonable”. Literally, you cannot be reasoned with.
That anger is deserved, did you read the image in this post?
That anger is extremely misdirected. You demand unity behind your political candidates, from people who refuse to support them on account of them seeing absolutely horrendous flaws that you refuse to see yourselves.
Why would a mass murderer deserve unity behind them, but a non-mass-murderer doesn’t? The fact that you’ve arrived at that conclusion at all demonstrates the absolutely bankruptcy of your political reasoning - the things that we’re trying to achieve with a social system in the first place are sacrificed. Human life, economic equality, quality of life, all of it.
You’ve lost sight of the entire goal. That’s the logic of drug addiction - chasing a high, diminishing returns, at the cost of your health. You’re continually investing in something which provides you worse and worse outcomes, and refusing to acknowledge alternate choices.
Any reasonable person could tell we had choice between Trump and Harris and we ended up with Trump.
Any reasonable person would reason with the points I addressed against that point in my previous comment, instead of just restating the premise. Just repeating what has already been said when somebody points out the problem with it is literally the definition of “unreasonable”. Literally, you cannot be reasoned with.
Who came in third in the 2024 presidential race?