That's just my stance, abolish all parties and let a man stand on his own merits proving that he will act on the promises he has made to his fellow man.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not counterproductive when one side wants to do horrible things to people like me and my friends and the other doesn't. When one side actively endangers people and takes their rights away and the other doesn't. Those are very, very real issues to a lot of people, and acting like that doesn't matter at this point is just willful ignorance. You don't have to identify with one side to openly disagree with the other. You can prefer a system without parties or teams without refusing to stand up against a team that already exists, whether you like it or not, and has made their horrible views very well known.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

and the most interesting part of the whole situation is that the other side most likely thinks the same

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Except there's no need to hypothesize about what the "the other side" wants. They have been perfectly vocal about what they think are issues that need to be "solved":

Accurate history lessons
Transgender people
Women's ability to have deadly ectopic pregnancies removed
"Urban" people
The right to protest against the flag
Gay people

If you have enough knowledge of history to know what a "final solution" looks like, you are justified in seeing "the other side" as the main problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Not really. Right wingers seem to like centrists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

But since these are mutually exclusive propositions, only one side can actually be correct. Do you really think it's more likely to be the science-denying conspiracy-minded side? The side that elected a transparent con man and buffoon, and appears to want to elect him again?