"They" bailed out big banks whose gambling resulted in millions of people losing their homes, and the electoral effect was basically zero. Just invoke 'the other side' come election season and all is forgotten. Third parties fail to the same trick - by 'wasting' your vote on them, you're indirectly voting for 'the other side.'

It's one of the many reasons that partisanship is foolish - it essentially leaves governments unaccountable. Another is the reason I put "they" in quotes. There will be lots of partisan finger pointing when the bubble pops, but it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks, and it'll be both of them bailing out big money again.

▲

parineum 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> "They" bailed out big banks whose gambling resulted in millions of people losing their homes,

That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.

> the electoral effect was basically zero.

because...

> it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks

▲

SideburnsOfDoom 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.

Well, yes but there is a distinction between "led to" vs "losing them". The first is indirect, the second is not.

You could expand that as "That gambling by banks offering these risky mortgages to unsuspecting people, actually led to people getting those homes. When the banks who did this did not bear the costs of their actions, and passed them on to their customers, the people losing their homes was the correction."

	▲	somenameforme 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, the issue with too big to fail is that it can equivalently be rephrased as too big to learn. And this just came out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-07-19/how-wall-... Sound familiar?