“Objectively” is such a fun way to describe what will always be a divisive position of power. Was any one president considered objectively good?
FDR. Fight me about it.
Well, Al Gore was voted president, and he didn’t make any objectionable decisions while George Bush was living in his house and working in his office.
I do wonder what the world would look like if Al Gore had been president.
You can thank Roger Stone for that, if you’d forgotten or if you were too young at the time to care or realize wtf was going on.
I was 15 in 2000…I fell into the latter camp.
He was one of the organizers of the Brooks Brothers Riot, which accomplished its goal of shutting down the Florida recount.
Obviously, since this didn’t happen yet, Trump didn’t know about this when Stone compelled him to run in the reform party that year (when he dropped out in February). The two of them worked together for a long time prior, Stone was a lobbyist for him.
But I’m sure Trump knew about that when Stone became a campaign consultant in 2016. That was also when he got involved with the person selling Hillary’s “derogatory financial info”, as the Mueller investigation revealed.
Didn’t matter tho. Trump commuted his sentence and pardoned him.
After all, the election was coming up. Stone already helped Bush secure a seat in 2000, and dug up dirt that cost Hillary the election. Dirt that wasn’t even really that dirty, just needed good spin.
And of course, he was instrumental in planning J6.
Dude is literally the most treacherous of treasonists. Comic book levels of villainy. No doubt he’s got something queued up to “ensure” a Republican “win” this year. He was primarily responsible for the last two Republican “wins” and really wants that third.
George S. Washington
george samuel washington was so good
The slaver?
FDR because one can be wrong about objective things
Grant’s administration was deeply imperfect - corruption ran deep - but he eradicated the first KKK. I feel like that’s an objective good, and anyone who disagrees isn’t worth listening to.
Does doing one good thing translate to being “an objectively good president” though? Broken clock and all that.
A president who performed an objective good, if you like
I mean Kamala will be a horrible president. It’s not possible to be a good president when it is a job to uphold the American empire and its power. Kamala will be horrible though with her support for the ongoing Gaza genocide, terrible and half arse healthcare and environmental plans when we can afford to be half arse on neither, she is also trying to outflank Trump to the right on immigration and police violence.
A cop won’t be a good president for freedom, not a shock to anyone who doesn’t idolize a political party.
Prosecutors aren’t cops try again
she could be a great president if she issues an arms embargo against Israel
So you’re saying you’re still voting for her because you’re not a literal Nazi, right? Right?
Well she doesnt not do Nazi type things…
Ham sandwich. It’s right there
Sure the meme is Kamala can be a terrible President, but I would vote for a Ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power ?
A ham sandwich can be eaten. Eating is good. That’s 1 pt ham sandwich, 0 gop. Ham sandwich does more for Americans than gop.
The rich can also be eaten.
I’m gonna need a bigger smoker.
And forest’s worth of hickory wood.
Too god damn true. That’s mainly why I voted for Harris on my main-in ballot. She’s not Trump, that’s the primary reason.
Yep. She’s not my ideal candidate, but she is better in every single way when compared to Trump.
Since it’s easier to break things than to maintain, fix, or create, the choice is obvious.
“Voting for the Lesser Evil is still Evil”
Makes sense.
I throw out all my old uneaten perfectly edible still in the packaging food that hasn’t expired yet instead of donating it to a local food bank because if I can’t give the nutrition-insecure folks a gourmet dinner, why should I even fucking bother?
We’re talking about evil, it’d be you have moldy chicken or moldy potatoes to eat, which is less likely to kill you if you eat it?
No, that’s the same evil… Poison is poison.
That’s why the comparison works.
Except it doesn’t because there’s a clear difference between Chump and Harris
Ok, but what if it’s a choice between those moldy potatoes that are poison vs undercooked pork that’ll give you tapeworms like RFK Jr’s brain.
Surely the latter is the “lesser evil”. You get fed today, and maybe your immune system keeps you healthy tomorrow. Still a risky proposition!
But you could also demand that the pork gets cooked longer by adding some progressive policies like not supporting genocide, demilitarizing, and investing in a clean environment. I’d say that’s worth protesting for. Be a Karen, ask to see the manager, and demand your pork is cooked properly.
Except this is an electoral college, meaning you get Harris or Trump, a sub-par meal that will make you sick for a little bit, but you’ll be fine, or trash that is coated in poison and will make you sick for a long time before you puke your guts out, likely not surviving.
And not choosing means someone force feeds you the worse of the two.
Except not.
Harris isn’t a subpar meal that makes you sick for a little bit, but you’re fine in the long run. She is the candidate that will feed us today while kicking the can on bigger problems down the road. She’s the delicious tapeworm pork. She’ll keep the economy and war machine running so Americans can keep leading their comfy lives on top of the world for a few more years before collapse. This prolongs the damage caused by the petroleum state that we call America, which accumulates into massive climate impacts.
Trump is food poisoning that is a lot worse in the short term and for America specifically. Another Trump term is likely to lead to civil war and/or national collapse. America focusing inwards may be better for a world that America has been terrorizing and holding hostage with its massive military. America is funding genocides and producing more oil than any other nation in history. America has spent this century positioning itself as an enemy of habitability. If you realize that your survival threatens the world, shouldn’t you choose the poison for the good of others?
I suppose it all depends on how long we have until a collapse and ensuing paradigm shift under Harris (a short time will encourage me to vote for her) vs how dangerous the senile old man will be before we can overthrow him and build a new country. Harris is promising too much stability for what we need to replace; Trump is promising to be senile and easy to overthrow.
If Harris wants me to vote for her without hesitation, she needs to tell me how she plans to shut down the fossil fuel industry and the evil war machine. Trump is promising to run them stupidly and dangerously, and the ensuing damage may be better than keeping the planet-killing machine running. That’s the horrible decision of this “lesser of two evils” approach. I’d really rather vote to responsibly shut it down, but my options are either live comfortably while it destroys the earth or shove this stick between the spokes and hope that the damage of crashing is less bad than if we keep going.
That said, I already voted for Harris, because that’s where my judgement lands on this question. But it’s a serious question that needs careful consideration from everyone. This is a big and important election. Everyone should think very carefully and weigh the options. This is NOT an easy decision, and anyone who thinks it is has been drinking the kool aid of one side or the other.
In four more years, my judgement may land differently.
Dunk The Vote in Aju
Thank you for being honest and not trying to pretend you care about Palestinians.
Is there a candidate that would help protect the Palestinians? Like a legitimate one that has even a remote possibility of winning? Nah? OK I’ll vote for the other things I care about then since that one is out of reach.
I think Kamala will be an objectively great president
That means, not just in comparison to Trump, but actually good in general. The moment you say or endorse that statement, talking about Trump or whether there’s a viable alternative is 100% whataboutism.
I respect you less than OP because you’re now pretending like you care about Palestinians, and it’s just because there’s no alternative that you support Harris. I prefer it when y’all take the mask off, because it’s pointless to argue against something the other side is only pretending to believe or value.
Did you have a seizure or something?
No, why do you ask?
They asked because they have no rational response to your completely valid points.
Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.
The absolute liberal irony in this is fucking hilarious.
You people are just genuinely lost in hyperreality, aren’t you?
p.s. try sneering harder, you’re totally winning over the working class.
“If I act like a smug asshole, people will want to vote who I like!”
It doesn’t work for Musk, it won’t work for weirdos online who think bad polices are okay when it’s blue.
In what way is anything I said disconnected from reality?
I think you replied to the wrong comment. The quote you’re including and answering does not exist here.
The fact that you’re asking just leaves me more concerned for you.
The bar is so fucking low man…
And that’s cool…
As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don’t yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they’re trying to help trump.
That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.
It’s just completely nonsensical to hear all the “moderates” claim they’d vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.
There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she’d lock this election down.
If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right…
With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.
If it’s not been posted already…
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/
Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his ‘started no wars’ con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.
We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they’d share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.
So we’re left with the second.
Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.
This is absolutely correct. I’m sure the 40% of voters who want to keep sending weapons to Israel aren’t even Harris voters. So clearly the Democratic party is only doing it for the love of genocide and it seems obvious that after they finish the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon they’ll shift their focus to genocide of Palestinians and other arabs living in America. This is completely unacceptable to me which is why I voted for Trump.
I thought about voting for a third party but I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
there are only two possible outcomes of this election
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
“Koncentration Kamp Kamala”
Listen to yourself. You’re beyond delusional. Seek help.
Sooooo… because you can’t be bothered to understand how things work. You voted for someone that suggests that Israel “finish the job.”
That sure showed regency libs!
You’re about as bad-faith as it gets. You’re MAGA, through and through. Drool the act that it has nothing to do with genocide.
The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
They wouldn’t lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations…
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone’s slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
Just never one who’s political policy matches Dem voters.
Look at current DNC leadership, it’s not people that know how to win elections, it’s just whoever can bring in the most donations.
The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump,
…
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
True. And a cushy consulting job, or a few thousand in bonuses seems like an understandable inventive, if a misanthropic one.
But for those who do the footwork supporting such a system, I just cannot see why. What have the Democrats done to deserve such blind obedience? Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
Today? Yes. Come inauguration day? Absolutely fucking not. If Kamala wins I’ll talk shit, write letters, donate to causes, protest, and cause trouble from the first day she’s in office until the end of primary season 4 years from now. Then I’m back on the train.
Unless we can get rid of FPTP. Then I’m talking shit every day all fucking day long while happily voting for a candidate who agrees with me most instead of the one I disagree with the least.
If Kamala wins I’ll talk shit, write letters, donate to causes, protest, and cause trouble from the first day she’s in office until the end of primary season 4 years from now
Why?
Edit: this started out as a single word question. The diatribe came after my reply.
It’s a reasonable question. Because I don’t think she’ll go far enough. And if she goes further than I think she will, I’ll push her to go further left than that. I’m not nearly as far left as a lot of folks on Lemmy. I probably fall into Social Democrat on a good day. But that puts me further left than most US politics and pretty much all the politics in my home state.
I’m a pragmatist when it comes to elections. She’s good enough to where I don’t think she’ll sponsor hunting parties for LGBTQ+ folks but I don’t think she’ll be trying very fucking hard to get universal healthcare or working with states to try to get rid of FPTP.
Unless your question is why I won’t do it after primary season. That’s because we don’t fight in front of the kids. I’m going to support the furthest left feasible candidate because, again, pragmatic. I’ll shut my fucking mouth, back the least fascist, and start trying to affect change again the second I can without shitting on that candidate during election season. Plus I like to take a break between election day and inauguration day because it’s all so mentally exhausting and I’ll be drinking more than usual for the holidays.
Sorry, I thought you were here asking a reasonable question with my other reply. If I had known you were like this I wouldn’t have bothered. Is that why you replied with a single word then edited it instead of spewing your tripe initially?
If “Israel should finish the job” Trump tickles your butthole, just say so.
Sorry, I thought you were here asking a reasonable question with my other reply. If I had known you were like this I wouldn’t have bothered.
Yep. So when you thought I was going to play the part of the meek little student at their teacher’s knee you were happy to respond, but as soon as it was clear I might actually disagree… Instantly I must be a Trump supporter, because literally the only option you can think of that isn’t agreeing with you entirely is ‘Trump’.
It’s pathetic.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this.
They always move to the middle in every election chasing “independent” votes that they never get. I see no evidence from history that they “arent idiots”.
Nah, I’m voting Trump. Especially since Dick Chaney came out in support of her. If the war pigs support her, I’m voting against her, 100%
lemmy.ml moment
deleted by creator
Thank you, I’m excited for a great economy and being able to get my savings built up again. :)
deleted by creator
What does .ml have to do with it? It was one of the available instances when I switched over from reddit.
I do wish more people were open about voting Trump, but there was a long period where it literally could cost you your job, so I can see why there’s still some hesitancy. I think that’s going away though.
deleted by creator
No one but the actual brain dead think people voting for trump are fascist.
And even though the Nazi party was a blowback reaction to socialism, does not mean every blowback against socialism is fascistic. If we’re not careful, there could be for sure, but trump voters are not fascists, and trump himself is not fascist.
deleted by creator
I am braindead
Ok got it
I see you have trouble reading, I’m sorry about that, I wish you luck with that
Holy shit you’re actually braindead or something. I dislike Harris but I’d be dead before I voted for Trump.
Same, but opposite.
deleted by creator
It’s not purely that, there are a lot of reasons I won’t vote for Kamala. That was just a huge one.
deleted by creator
I disagree. :)
deleted by creator
I disagree. If literal nazis are behind you, i want nothing to do with you.
deleted by creator
Trump is just as much of a warmongerer as anyone. He nearly started WWIII with Iran by assassinating Soleimani. Dick Cheney just doesn’t like him because of personal reasons.
The only isolationists/doves are third party candidates, as has been the case for well over 20 years.
No he didn’t. We’re far closer to WWlll now than we ever were under Trump. Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, China is creeping up to attack Taiwan… And now Russia and China are tighter than ever, which is not good for the west.
Dick Chaney doesn’t like him because Dick Chaney makes all his money on War. He was literally one of the masterminds behind our war with Iraq.
Now, Mark Cuban… He doesn’t like Trump for personal reasons, lol.
Trump escalated tensions with both China and Russia, while giving total support to Israel. He bombed Syria, tore up the Iran deal, and attempted coups in Bolivia and Venezuela, while expanding sanctions on Cuba. Biden has merely continued his policies. There is broad bipartisan consensus on military spending and escalation of conflicts, and Trump has no real interest in going against that.
Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth to allow everyone to project whatever they want onto him, whether they’re isolationist or the most bloodthirsty of nationalists, and liberals paint everyone who disagrees with their interventionist positions with the same brush, which helps him do it. I wrote a post dissecting his language here. If you actually look at his record and his actions, he’s happy enough to go along with what the military-industrial complex wants. Here is a video that goes into more details about specifics.
Dick Cheney is obviously a horrible monster who deserves the worst, and it reflects very poorly on Harris to accept his endorsement, but just because she sucks doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t.
He was firm with Russia and China, but neither of them moved to attack. I don’t care how mad the two are, as long as it keeps war from breaking out.
I do agree that there’s a bipartisan consensus on military spending, but I think it’s between the Rinos and the DNC. Not that I think Trump will significantly defund our military, but I do think, with those he’s built up around him this time, he’ll be less likely to get into these proxy war situations, end the ones we’re in now, and hopefully we won’t see anymore US-backed coups.
The issue is, all of that will 100% keep happening under Harris. There’s a reason Dick Chaney didn’t endorse Trump, and it’s because he knows he’s not going to get as much sweet war money from the trump administration being in charge. He knows he’ll get that with Kamala.
All of that will 100% keep happening under Trump as well. There is nothing whatsoever that would indicate otherwise. You’re just going off of vibes.
I don’t care how mad the two are, as long as it keeps war from breaking out.
That’s self-contradictory. Worsening relations make conflict more likely. Trump is the one that set us on this trajectory in the first place. The idea of China or Russia being our enemies was laughable before him.
The reality is that neither part of the establishment actually wants war with Russia or China. They’re sitting comfortable at the top and have no reason to throw the world into chaos and jeopardize their comfortable positions. What they want is to rally people up into supporting the possibility of war in order to justify military spending, which they profit from. The risk of war comes from two things: first, someone overplays their hand, and second, that the people who are being rallied up to support war actually find themselves in position to follow through. Part of the reason that some people on the right, such as Tucker Carlson, oppose involvement in the war in Ukraine is because they actually want a full-scale war with China and want to close the other front to make way for it.
I don’t see how you can look at all the coups and bombings and rising tensions and unconditional support for Israel under Trump before and seriously think that he won’t do more coups and such if elected again. It’s just cope.
This meme is pseudo-scientific without any understanding of objectivity.
I’d vote for a ham sandwich if I lived in a magic place where it mattered. This sham democracy is why we’re stuck with worthless votes for garbage people. There’s no way to vote ourselves out of a fundamentally corrupt system.
Voting matters. Don’t be so defeatist that you stop trying.
It is exactly what the people, this person doesn’t like, want them to do though! So clearly they are morally superior to those who choose a lesser evil, and work to push better candidates where it is possible, like their local governments, courts, and sheriff’s offices.
I mean, it’s not like locking in a party federally, while pushing for close attention on the local level. Locking in a large amount of voting districts. Then selecting for further, and further, right wing options, for those positions, ever worked for the GOP. Oh wait, no, that is exactly how the ethno-state evangelicals formed both a death grip on the GOP, and the GOP a death grip on the government, despite being minorities.
It is a sham democracy, but the votes do still matter. Worst case, we have a choice between half assed climate policy that at least acknowledges it needs attention, or climate accelerationism. We have the choice between half assed women’s rights, or women being pushed further towards being second class citizens. We have the choice between half assed protections for the queer community, or the continued dehumanization and harm towards the queer community.
The list goes on. The two candidates aren’t equal.
As someone who genuinely doesn’t understand American politics too much, wouldn’t Trump be better for the Middle East? I live in Lebanon right now and most people that I talk to say that Trump would be far better than anyone else for the Middle East, considering what he did in his first term. They’ll also back this up with “he’s a business man, and war is bad for business”, but I don’t entirely buy that considering how profitable war is for the US. Could someone put my in the loop?
Trump literally said he’d make sure Gaza stops existing.
Although Russian propaganda loves to portray him as being better for the middle east.
Trump is a Zionist so he’d probably start backing Israel with more weapons and escalating the current situation with Iran.
Don’t worry, voters will definitely hand both houses to the Republicans in 2026 if she’s elected and they’ll take their orders directly from Trump.
Because that’s what always happens.
deleted by creator
They’re working on JD Vance to fill the void.
deleted by creator
There’s always an asshole. Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump. And our electoral system and goldfish-memory population will continually put them into power.
Don’t blame “the population”, if everybody had exactly the same starting conditions, they’d end up the same. I’m autistic and generally - from experience with people - think that every popular thing is crap and every popular idea is crap, and the more hated something is, the more wisdom may be in it.
But. The population generally has the same kind of memory as you. There are a lot of traps and distractions, they fall for some, you fall for some others. There’s no need to blame the victim.
Newt, Mitch and the others only have their local GOP cult, they don’t have the national cult that the orange turd does.
Okay, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones & The Turds.
There will always be an asshole. That’s the entire reason we even have government in the first place.
It didn’t happen to FDR.
Yeah but he didn’t integrate the population racially so he got to keep power.
That’s not what happened in 2022, at least not quite. Don’t underestimate Trump’s ability to insert himself and mess up whatever easy wins the GOP would otherwise have.
