> How do you figure?

Biden was speaking to the people who ended up bankrolling Trump when threatened with slightly increased taxes, and who are going to dump billions into the midterms. When you're in a country that wavers around 50/50 every election (even when the choice is between competent government or a spectacularly incompetent shitshow of grifters, pedos and thieves), yes, there are limits to what you can realistically do in one election cycle.

In any case, it's actually hilarious that rhetoric like this "oh well actually the Dems are to blame because they haven't stopped them yet" is precisely why Republicans are gung ho in fighting against ranked choice ballots. A secret they've learned is to field some fringe bullshit candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Kanye, and so on, and they need the sort of idiots that vote for idiots like that to be throwing away their votes because "it's a uniparty of capital". Ranked choice ballots -- real democracy -- would threaten that.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/08/07/worlds-wealthiest-ma...

Trump has repeatedly claimed ranked choice ballots are "corrupt", and House Republicans have repeatedly tried to ban it. Do you want to know why? Protip - it's because they rely on incredibly stupid voters.

▲

a day ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

swed420 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Is that why Dems elevated Trump originally from meme-tier gameshow host to serious contender with their pied piper "strategy"? The best they could do is be mad at wikileaks for making them look bad.

Or why they forced a widely unpopular Dem candidate instead of having an actual primary last time around (not that they've shown they can even run a fair primary)?

edit to add:

> Ranked choice ballots -- real democracy -- would threaten that.

This is not the magical fix you think it is, since other countries with >2 parties suffer from the same systemic rot of revolving door politics, monopolistic corporate media, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

▲

llm_nerd a day ago | parent [-]

100%. Clearly you've nailed it, and you should vote for Trump's third term.

Let's be real here - when people do the "both parties are the same", usually citing some chickenshit bullshit like you just did, they're almost always a terrible person who just loves Trump but won't just admit it.

Just own it, man.

▲

swed420 a day ago | parent [-]

Way to address actual criticisms.

Also, it's a strawman of your creation to say both parties are the same. They're two different facades for the same underlying monetary interests. Sorry you're so easily fooled by that, but it shows that it works.

▲

llm_nerd a day ago | parent [-]

> We have a faux democracy / uniparty of capital interests where one "side" manufactures consent for the other.

That's your quote. Strawman? Not really, friend.

Do you know what the prefix uni- means? Let me quote Google for you-

"The prefix uni- means "one," "single," or "having only one." It comes from the Latin word unus"

I mean, you literally just blamed the Dems for Trump, which is simply amazing stuff. The reaching...don't your arms hurt?

	▲	swed420 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Nowhere does that say same, like you're trying to force. It makes sense you'd resist and twist what I'm saying, because it means people like you are literally part of the problem. Since you edited your post, I'll respond: > "The prefix uni- means "one," "single," or "having only one." It comes from the Latin word unus" They are still undeniably two separate parties that both inherit the most important traits from the root problem of dominating capital interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty > Uniparty is a political term referring to the idea that seemingly separate political parties, typically the two dominant parties in a liberal democracy, function in practice as a single entity. It is often applied to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the United States, or to the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.[1] The concept implies that despite their outward disagreements, the parties collaborate behind closed doors and share a unified set of political and economic interests, effectively creating a de facto one-party state. Proponents of this idea argue that such a "uniparty" suppresses genuine political alternatives and dissenting viewpoints by exercising control over the media, grassroots organisations, and ballot access regulations.[2]