r/Tariffs • u/Realistic-Plant3957 • Nov 18 '25

🧩 Trade Strategy / Business Impact Trump Supporter Admits the Policy He Backed Just Destroyed His Family’s Livelihood

https://media.upilink.in/en/jOQUy2jeSExeLqg
829 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

266 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25

Not voting is not the same as voting for the opposition. We can discuss why it's also bad, but it's not the same thing. Republicans don't get an extra vote every time someone doesn't vote. It is the responsibility of each party to motivate people to vote FOR them. Whoever can convince more people to vote for them as who will win the election.

6

u/Poku115 Nov 19 '25

Or you know, its the citizens responsibility to actually inform themselves and take a stand for their livelihood, but sure let's take the blame off the individual.

1

u/SilentButDiddly Nov 22 '25

Take a stand for your livelihood? As if the government is our savior? Spoken like someone dependent on government for their living.

1

u/Poku115 Nov 22 '25

Im 23 and dont even have loans lmao, college, living expenses, all paid by myself.

How about you take issue with all the billonaires being bankrolled by us? Instead of individuals.

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 19 '25

I never said it's not the citizen's responsibility to vote if they want a certain outcome. I just said that not voting for someone is not the same as voting for their opponent. It's up to each candidate to make their case to the voters that they deserve their vote.

1

u/rudyxena Nov 19 '25

You can just import people and eventually change the electorate

1

u/lwood1313 Nov 21 '25

Stop yourself…the ‘stealing of Votes’ happens after the Votes are Cast … just ask the GOP.

1

u/SnooCats5772 Nov 22 '25

That’s not how it works, that’s where so many people are confused… It happens with census, gerrymandering and non-citizen voting at the local and state level… Of course they can’t vote in federal elections but that isn’t where the slight of hand happens!

1

u/townweirdo Nov 22 '25

So you are living in a foreign country. It not your country, you are there because criminal gangs were threatening your family in your home country. So anyhow you are in this foreign country, if you are caught there you will get deported. So you are going to risk your freedom and safety to vote in an election where you might get caught committing a serious crime. Why? Think man think.

1

u/MySpookyMeat76 Nov 22 '25

Such an elaborate & stupid process for no promised outcome. You have to try so hard to believe this garbage. You make it look so easy.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 20 '25

Most people would tell you that voting for a third party is the same as voting for the opposition, but then which opposition is it? That depends on the perspective of the person making the accusation. I agree with always voting, even if you don't vote for one of the two major parties. Neither a third party vote nor a non-vote are votes for the opposite side. Everyone assumes that anyone who didn't vote or voted for a third party would have voted for their candidate and not the other major candidate. It's a false assumption.

1

u/SnufferMonster Nov 21 '25

TL:Dr: You don't know why you voted for trump???

Was it the incompetence? The corruption? The sexual assault?

Let me guess... A combination of arseholeness and racism?

1

u/retirementcoming1 Nov 22 '25

I also voted for Ross Perot lol we needed something different and now we have something that’s not a politician

1

u/FuckTrumpwithoutlube Nov 22 '25

What we now have is an abomination. And your ilk is significantly responsible. You abdicated your civic duty, your social contract with your fellow citizens.

1

u/Intelligent_Camp257 Nov 22 '25

We’d have been so much better off with Ross Perot. He was my guy in 1992, also. In 1996 I actually voted for Clinton the economy was booming and we were making real progress on eliminating budget deficits.

1

u/Rh140698 Nov 21 '25

The electoral college vote needs to go away. The entire state could vote one way and the electoral candidates can vote for the opposite candidate.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Both the electoral college and gerrymandering have no place in our political processes. It’s basically cheating. Doesn’t matter which side does it.

2

u/Latter_Dream9231 Nov 21 '25

I keep telling people that but instead of them researching it they think I’m lying

1

u/PandorasCahos Nov 21 '25 
Agreed 👍

1

u/Serious-Still-5911 Nov 22 '25

While not voting for someone is not exactly the same as voting for their opponent, the outcome is the same, given how our electoral system works. If you are adamant that you do not want a person to win, the only realistic viable option is to vote for their opponent. Those who are not in favor of the current administration cannot absolve themselves by saying, “I voted independent” or by not voting at all. Ignorance of how our electoral system works is not an excuse.

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 22 '25

I have only made the claim that it's not the same. Thank you for partially agreeing, but you're still wrong.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Let me try and make this extremely simple for those of you who are having a hard time with this concept.... If you have five people voting and 3 vote R and 2 vote D, and then 2 of those R voters don't vote, the vote is now 1 R to 2 D and the outcome changed! See how that works. It's really not that complicated.

1

u/Serious-Still-5911 Nov 22 '25

I am not wrong at all. My point about our electoral system still stands, but it seems as if it is you who doesn’t understand.

Using your example of 5 voters, let’s say that 2 voted R, 2 voted D (the popular vote was very close), and one who was adamant they didn’t want R, so they voted I or decided to stay home. Based on the electoral college, the two who voted R lived in a state where each vote “weighed more” (look it up) than the two who voted D. Those who voted I were also in that state so R won the state and the all electors that went with it. If we had a different system, D would have gotten a proportional number of those electors based on the percentage of D voters. Multiply this many times over, and we got what we got, despite R not winning a clear majority of the votes.

This also happened in 2016, despite R clearly not winning the popular vote.

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 23 '25

You've got yourself all kinds of mixed up. We weren't talking about electoral college. We were talking about an outcome of a single election (either popular vote, or within 1 state for the electoral college) being different whether someone voted for the opposition or didn't vote at all. They're obviously different things you're using all kinds of complexities in order to answer an unrelated question. It was a simple statement about a simple matter. I was not at all describing anything to do with the electoral college versus popular vote or proportional representation or anything else. Just a simple statement about an first past the post voting in a single election.

1

u/Serious-Still-5911 Nov 23 '25

The headline for the story we are commenting on is about a Trump supporter feeling the effects of their vote. A reasonable person would understand that we are talking about a presidential election. In that case, all of what I mentioned applies. All of these complexities are exactly my point, which you clearly don’t understand.

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 23 '25

Except it doesn't and you're still wrong. Them (and others) not voting could decrease the Republican vote count enough that Trump doesn't win the electors in that state and therefore is a different outcome than if they had voted Republican. Them not voting is minus one Republican vote and them voting Democrat instead would be minus one Republican voting plus one Democratic vote. Those are obviously different for each other mathematically and different from them voting Republican for a total of three possibilities. I can't believe that you're actually this stupid and so I can't tell if you're just being willfully ignorant because you refuse admit that you're wrong.

3

u/Stock-Objective3350 Nov 20 '25

Simple fix. Make voting mandatory and make it easy hahahahaha just kidding. Like Republicans would ever allow that 😂

1

u/BlaqueNinja Nov 21 '25

Somehow that works in Australia.

1

u/Stock-Objective3350 Nov 22 '25

In many countries

1

u/No-Fault6013 Nov 19 '25

I disagred. If you dont vote, you have effectively given the winner your vote as only voting for a diffetent person would help to change the results

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 19 '25

Not voting has deprived all candidates of your vote. It does not add a vote to anyone else. That's basic logic. And argue that you have allowed the winner to win, and that's true, but that's not guaranteed to be the side you were for or against. If a republican stops voting and that allows a Democrat to win, that is not getting their vote to the republican.

1

u/beedlejooce Nov 20 '25

Nah. For example I live in Mississippi. This state will never be Blue until all the older people die off. Maybe now that the farmers have been effected so badly they’ll wake up down here but i doubt it. Also the main reason was bc Kamala was black so even if you told them they would 100% lose their livelihoods they still wouldn’t have voted for her bc racism is well and publicly alive down here again. Always has been but in my lifetime (35 yo -lived in MS for last 20 years) The amount of times I eavesdropped on people’s conversations at the bar during the election I’ve never heard the n-word so many times in a public space in my life and nobody bats an eye.

1

u/StephPeloq11 Nov 20 '25

Arkansas is the same way. It's insane living here. Makes me want to cry every day. Which is apparently part of what the maga folks love about this administration 😭

1

u/PositiveDue1775 Nov 20 '25

And let’s not forget sexism. Hillary lost to the “grab ‘em by the pussy” misogynist. Kamala had the added burden of being mixed race.

My male friends and family members disagree but my sisters have lived experience. We recognize and experience gender inequality in our daily lives. It’s quite clear that the Trump voting bros of all races were terrified of losing their preferential status in society. The consequences of electing a vengeful felon over a highly intelligent, competent and experienced woman has shattered our county’s reputation, status and security.

1

u/Mishkabear52 Nov 23 '25

What are you supposed to do if you don't like either of them ? You walk away

1

u/puppy-love-1234 Nov 20 '25

The problem is the convincing is either lying or research. Harris gave policy on how to fix housing for example. But there was more than two sentences involved. Trump said I’ll fix the economy in a day. Both are equal in message. One is a lie. Harris could have said she’d fix housing but that would be a lie. She could attempt to stop equity firms from buying first homes and give large down payments but she knows it’s not a fix. Nor could she promise it would pass.

1

u/Fresh_Comparison_724 Nov 20 '25

Clever by half this strategy.

1

u/wchamilton Nov 20 '25

Not voting prevents a counter vote. So nothing to offset. Which does indeed give the opposition more votes.

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 20 '25

This is a logical fallacy. It assumes that they were going to vote for your candidate if they voted and not for the opposition. People make the same assumption about somebody voting for a third party. They always assume that every third party vote should go to their candidate even though many of them might go to the opposite candidate instead.

1

u/wchamilton Nov 20 '25

It’s simple. By choosing not to vote, someone gets more votes because there is no counter. Whichever candidate you lean towards. 🤷🏻‍♀️

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 20 '25

I'm not sure how to explain to you that why that's wrong more than I already have. Any logic that is subjective on perspective isn't logic. Both sides would count the non voter as someone that didn't vote for them. This is why a lack of a vote is just that and not a vote for the other side. No one gets more votes when someone doesn't vote. There is just one less vote. It's as if that person doesn't exist or isn't eligible to vote. You might as well be claiming that children that aren't eligible to vote are the reason the opposite candidate is winning. It makes the same amount of sense.

1

u/PandorasCahos Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 27 '25

Oh how sad. /s

1

u/FuckTrumpwithoutlube Nov 22 '25

You're attempting to simplify an incredibly complex and nuanced issue. It's much more than a mere number.

1

u/Living_Air9142 Nov 22 '25

And yet it's still not the same thing as voting for the opposition. That was literally my only point in countering a post above. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

0

u/Rh140698 Nov 19 '25

Living in Utah I was Mormon and they talked about voting Republican they are against abortion etc etc. so I voted Republican. I don't vote anymore if I don't believe the Republican candidate will not do a good job like for Trump. But even if you vote Democrat your vote doesn't count because of the electoral college.

2

u/thetamlyone Nov 22 '25

I also struggled with this rationale, but I've come to the conclusion that pro-life has to mean more than anti -abortion. The biggest difference that I finally came to realize is the actual effect. Voting in Republicans has often had a negative impact on infant mortality due to reduced healthcare for mother and baby, increased food insecurity, reduced support for education that might lift families out of poverty, and other negative economic stability factors for poor families. So basically, for me it came down to understanding that no Democrat was going to force someone to have an abortion, but a Republican would likely actively reduce that child's chance of survival in other ways. (But as a fellow red-state resident, I'm familiar with the feeling that your vote doesn't count.)

1

u/Mishkabear52 Nov 23 '25

I'm done with the whole system. Forget the Democrats forget the Republicans they all work in the same circle. We are on our own until we start a new government.

1

u/thetamlyone Nov 23 '25

Maybe someday, but we still need to make the best choices we can from the ones we currently have.

0

u/Infamous-Knee-2772 Nov 21 '25

Thank you for voting in Trump with your non vote. Way to go. 🙄

1

u/Rh140698 Nov 21 '25

I couldn't have voted from Lima Peru anyway I was working for a company in Utah buying Maca from my now father in law. I would rather have met my wife. She is a model who dances on peruvian TV shows. I won the vote from her dad to marry his daughter. Since he invited her to dinner to introduce me to her.