YOU are not the average voter. You’re likely much more informed than the average American voter.
When the average American voter hears “socialism”, they think of “the Ruskies” or the “Chi-coms”, not Scandinavia.
They think Scandinavia is the thing that sits on your printer that converts your documents into pdfs.
That’s my point. People overwhelmingly like DSA policies, but are hesitant to say that they would consider voting for a DSA candidate because of their (incorrect) association with socialism.
McCarthyism has done such a good job of muddying the waters in American politics that any policies labeled as “social-anything” are immediately associated with USSR gulag bread lines or Maoist famine.
A not-so-insignificant number of Americans believe the Nazis were the same as the Communists because their party has “socialist” in the name.
“Hey kids! Sorry, we can’t eat this week because the neighbors voted Trump. Oopsie.”
“ThATs NoT hOW sTatIStICS wORks” he says, in the midst of a conversation in which the motion being debated is whether some of the poors not voting correctly means all of the poors deserve to go hungry.
Forgive me if I don’t take your “nuh uh” as a persuasive rationale for starving 16 million kids. You’re clearly the more intelligent of the two of us.
At least 16 million of them could not possibly have voted for this.
An estimated 39% of SNAP recipients are children.
This is giving real “well have they tried not being poor?” energy.
Harris received 6.8 million votes fewer than Biden received in 2020. Even assuming every single one of those 6.8 million votes were SNAP recipients, you’re essentially saying that 42 million people deserve to go hungry because 3 in 20 (or around 16%) of them chose not to vote in 2024.
Moreover, DJT only received 2.8 million more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. So let’s assume all 2.8 million of those were SNAP recipients, and then let’s assume SNAP recipients entirely determined the election result. 2.8 million + 6.8 million voters is about 22% of all SNAP recipients (or about 1 in 5).
Never mind the fact that around 39% of SNAP recipients are children (i.e. unable to vote).
So 2 children and 3 adults deserve to go hungry if 1 of the adults either doesn’t vote or votes for the wrong person?
Do you realize how incredibly fucking insane you sound?
That’s misleading and deliberately misses the commenter’s point. The DSA explicitly rejects authoritarian models of socialism (USSR, DPRK, etc).
The red-scare-fueled conflation of democratic socialism with basically Stalinism is largely what drives the general disfavorability of “socialism” in these sorts of opinion polls.
It’s not like people were asked, “Do you favor ordinary people having a real voice in their workplaces, neighborhoods, and society? Do you favor a higher minimum wage, universal health care (Medicare for All), strengthening labor unions, and increasing the power of working people while weakening the power of corporations?”
People broadly support those things, but would very likely hesitate to call that democratic socialism (which, spoiler: those are the DSA’s core tenets).
“I will admit it’s worse than even I expected, but I did warn y’all!” The crowd at a sports arena in Norfolk, Virginia, half-laughed and half-groaned.
Told who exactly? What a wild thing to say in Norfolk—where the surrounding cities (Norfolk included) overwhelmingly voted Harris in 2020.
Voters told YOU (and the DNC) to back someone other than Biden, and YOU didn’t listen until it was way too late. If anyone fumbled the election, it’s the folks who had Biden’s ear and said nothing.
“I told you so” smug assed energy—get the fuck outta here and say that to Michiganders or Pennsylvanians, you tone deaf dickhead.
The way some people throw themselves all over this man…
:/
Oh oh! I know! If they really want to look ghostly then they could wear white sheets over themselves while arresting people.
👻
Nobody in particular.
FTFTFTFY
They’re not acting against their users, it’s just that non-enterprise consumers are a complete afterthought. I.e. less of a “fuck you” to individual consumers and more of a “who the fuck do you think you are?”.
Why market or design an OS for individual consumers when the majority of your revenue is going to come from volume licensing by manufacturers that are fulfilling bulk purchases from corporate America/higher-ed?
I don’t think it’s AI aversion. The problem is that Windows 11 guts the muscle memory that older consumers have built up from using prior generations of Microsoft Windows.
If a company is going to dick me over by suddenly changing/hiding/abstracting-away parts of their OS that I used to (an am used to) use on a daily basis, then I’d rather relearn a new OS from a company that doesn’t have the track record of totally redoing their entire OS in the course of a single OS generation.
If I also have a little bit more disposable income and am anticipating a poor economic downturn, I’m going with the device that I can go to a physical brick-and-mortar place and have it serviced as opposed to the crap shoot that is any other Windows-licensed manufacturer’s device.
In what way does this imply stupidity?
Thune: “We’re not going to negotiate on anything until Democrats stop holding government funding hostage”
So it’s “hostage taking” when you’re the ones getting leveraged?
Countdown until Repubs start chanting “free the hostages!” in reference to the American people… 🙄
Those facts you were waiting for, btw:
“Greta Thunberg: I was tortured, beaten and starved by Israel” - The Telegraph, 15 October 2025
Is bitter mockery a pragmatic approach to winning friends and influencing people to shaping a better politics?
Or is it just cathartic?
Because it was a hypothetical based upon an argument from absurdity.
I know that the statistics were absurd. The premise was, “let’s assume everyone who didn’t show up to vote this time around and everyone that voted for Trump (but didn’t last time) are at fault.”
My goal was not to demonstrate what statistically plausible number of people that were “responsible for Trump winning” that were on SNAP benefits.
My entire point was that even if you do shitty, uncharitable, worst-case-scenario statistics about the election, the original argument would amount to saying 42 million people should go hungry because less than a quarter of them didn’t vote hard enough. My point was that even lying with the numbers would still result in the original premise being flimsy.
Your gripe is that my math is wrong. My gripe is that even shitty math can’t come close to justifying 42 million people thrown off SNAP, which further highlights the assholery of stating “hurr durr didn’t vote hard enough so let them eat cake”.
Your pedantry misses the sarcasm and tone of my response, and—judging from your comment history—is perfectly in line with your MO of dropping one liners designed to be maximally contrarian without contributing further to the discussion.
Like… no shit the real stats are wildly different—they would very likely show that a much smaller number of people who determined the outcome of the 2024 election are currently SNAP recipients. Which, again, would not make the original premise that I was responding to any stronger.
You’re failing at reading comprehension.