The anchor dragging society down.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
Seldom have I seen someone, even you, contradict himself over the course of two sentences.
Either they're voting themselves money out of other people's wallets, or it is spite. In the former case their motivation is economic self-interest and not 'spite'.
Perhaps, more accurately, it would be Malice - not spite.
You can certainly vote for economic reasons and couple them with a little malice on the side.
You think women are more likely to vote for Democrats because of "malice"?
No, I was just suggesting that the original poster probably meant "malice" and not "spite"
Ah. Well, he does love the word 'spite' - whether used accurately or not.
Porque no los dos?
The money they're stealing is worth less because of the terrible economic policy they're pushing for.
Because it's not a 'spite vote' when it benefits you economically, as you also claim.
You mean the terrible economic policy that you are pushing for. After all, single men voted more Democratic than married women. So zip it, boy.
That's untrue. You can do something out of spite that still benefits you. For example, "Jessica tripped on John's garden hose. She didn't like John. She didn't get injured when she tripped, but sued him anyway out of spite." See. Not mutually exclusive. Spite can be boiled down to "because fuck you, that's why". It doesn't mean there can be other benefits.
Can you explain why you think those two things are mutually exclusive?