“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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump,
…
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.
“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.
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?
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”.
Absent of any anti-Trump arguments, I’d like to hear the case for Kamala being a truly great President. A few policy positions she, in particular, is notable for?
There are policy details on her website: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
But it’s pretty simple overall. She’s not a maverick, what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard. The Dems believe in running the economy from the middle class, because investing in people is how we achieve long-term economic success and improve quality of life. So all her policies are going to be the same they would have been for Obama or Biden: improve social protections, improve access to education, improve access to housing, lower costs of living, make the corporations and wealthy pay their fair shares, pull away from needless wars, strengthen international relationships and create trade agreements of mutual benefit.
She can talk policy until she’s blue in the face, but we all should already know exactly what we are getting when we vote for a Democrat. The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat. When we raise the minimum wage, it’s a Democrat. When we try to make education more affordable or help those with student debt, it’s a Democrat. When we strengthen unions and increase taxes on corporations, it’s a Democrat. When we pull out of wars, when we increase social services, when we increase protections for minorities, when we secure our clean water and block chemicals and pesticides in our food and household products, when we raise fuel efficiency standards and make corporations pay for pollution, it’s a Democrat.
It baffles me that we have to talk about this stuff like it’s new. It’s simple and it has been for years:
You want a party that runs the economy like adults, and works for the middle class and the well-being of the people: Democrats.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard
See, that’s what I’m not thrilled about.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
You’re only arguing the “I’d vote for a ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power” side. You don’t need to argue that part, we all know this, and it isn’t what the person you’re replying to was asking.
No one even said anything about Jill Stein here, bringing her up now feels like a very bad faith argument.
Amazing.
90% of my comment was to explicitly say what Democrats do. And you managed to single out the 10% that wasn’t about Democrats.
Why stop there? Throw in some “both sides” stuff too.
Yep. I agree with you 100% and is why I’ve tried to stop engaging regarding politics on this site. It just seems like 99% of the posters are posting in bad faith, or insane levels of naivety. Perfection the enemy of good personified.
Nah, it’s just a few legitimately bad actors and a few naive folks. Most people here are pretty reasonable but it’s hard to remember the guy dressed normally that walked past you three days ago while you will always remember the dude in the thong onesie holding a sign saying the great old ones are coming back any day to battle the frost giants.
I didn’t feel the need to go over the DNC point-by-point. I said the Dem agenda is what I’m not thrilled about.
Do I have to go point-by-point before I can ask why you felt the need to bring up the Republicans and even Jill Stein at all when it’s clear that wasn’t the question being asked? We all know they’re bad, but the fact that it seems like the only way to talk about the DNC is to keep reminding us that they’re not the other guys, you were explicitly asked to actually say what’s good about Kamala without doing that.
Asks for good points about Kamala Harris without mentioning any bad points about republicans. Gets lots of substantial points and a throwaway about Stein. Ignores all the points about democrats and greys very cross about mentioning Stein once at the end.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12851475
What conclusions am I to draw? You just hate it when other people don’t follow the letter of your laws,even the ones you didn’t say out loud? That you hate discussing bad points about Kamala’s opponents? That people can tell you benefits of voting for Kamala as much as they like, you’ll never hear any of it and you’ll still assert that no one can come up with any?
I didn’t ignore what you said, I responded by saying I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda. It’s all too little too slowly, without addressing underlying structural issues with capitalism. Did you need me to quote each line individually in order to say that?
What I don’t like is that even when the question is explicitly “Regardless of how bad the other side is, what’s actually good about the DNC?” you are incapable of not pivoting that question back to talking about how bad the other guys are. We know, but that wasn’t the question.
What I don’t like is that I can’t even say “I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda” without having all kinds of accusations hurled in my face.
Correction, you can’t say “tell me good things” and ignore all the good things, then complain that there were no good things, without being called out on it.
90% of my comment was to explicitly say what Democrats do
To which their response was “yeah, that’s not exciting, we’ve seen it before”, they addressed it. You didn’t need to write out all of those words when you’d already summed it up well with “basic democrat”
Being a Democrat does not make you an inherently great president, it makes you the not-shit option
So, when asked for an argument that’s void of any anti-trump points you basically said “they’re Democrats. Plus they’re not trump!”, which isn’t an answer and includes the thing they said not to
Why stop there? Throw in some “both sides” stuff too.
Lol, “any criticism of the Democrats is right wing infiltration” is some shit taking for sure
It might not be right wing infiltration, but it sure is right wing talking points, whoever it’s coming from.
Sah yes, gotta shut down any criticism of glorious leader!
Fucking shit take
That’s not a denial, it’s just name calling.
The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat.
Not even balanced - Clinton produced a surplus during his last couple of years in office. Had we continued on that path, we would now be debt-free as a nation, instead of in debt to the tune of $35 fucking trillion (equivalent to a full seven years of tax revenues).
Except for embracing firearms, I dont think she has a few poicy positions for anyone to evaluate. She just adopts whatever Bidens policies were. She did the same thing when she was running for president before Biden tapped her for VP. Couldnt formulate a policy position to save her life.
Start with what makes a good president? Obviously there’s the issues and all that which people focus on, but that’s subject to debate. Objectively, some qualities are definitely good, like being good at both urgent and non-urgent decision making, good at managing/organizing/handling chaos, capable of outsmarting adversaries, being a unifying force rather than a divisive one. Just to name a few. So let’s look at those:
- Decision-making: She’s relatively young compared to recent presidents, definitely a bit more in touch with modern reality and less tied to the old ways of doing politics. She’s faced a tough choice with her running mate, and while Walz has been criticized by some, given the short timeframe it’s clear she at least didn’t fuck it up. Her debate prep clearly succeeded, and she’s avoided any scandals despite clearly Republicans trying very hard to find them. All of these show a record of decent to good decisions.
- Managing, etc Obviously her campaign started in the midst of chaos, and there were a lot of fears regarding that transition. And it went probably better than anyone expected, with everyone quickly gaining confidence in her.
- Outsmarting adversaries She did a better job at this in the debate than any candidate in my memory.
- Unifying force Again I’ll refer to her getting everyone behind her after Biden dropped, while also keeping Biden’s support. Don’t underestimate how unlikely that seemed before it happened.
I’ll avoid comparing Trump who is obviously severely deficient in all of these respects. But I could go further and say she obviously compares favorably to Biden too, and compared to Obama, I’d give her an edge on outsmarting adversaries and managing, and Obama probably gets the edge on the other 2. But we’ll see.
She used to be a prosecutor. That means she can see things from both sides and look at things objectively and not make rash decisions. It’s a good quality for a president.
I mean My Only Hope from her being a prosecutor is that she actually prosecutes crimes, I’m not very hopeful of that especially with her seemingly not wanting to bring back Lena Khan, but I can dream. However normally being a prosecutor would disqualify you for me, good people don’t become prosecutors.
Did she say something about not bringing back Lina Khan? The only thing I saw was that Mark Cuban said he didn’t like her (which is just another plus in my mind. If the billionaires are scared of you, you’re doing something right), and whoever printed the article decided to call him a “Harris Surrogate.”
Which I’m pretty sure is just flat out untrue. He supports her, and maybe he was even organizing for her. But “surrogate” means he speaks for her, and as far as I understand it, he absolutely does not
Good people do become prosecutors. Why? Because they don’t want to see bad people on the street. Sometimes you’ll wind up having to fight against someone innocent, but that doesn’t necessarily make someone bad. You have to prove without a doubt that that person didn’t do it. It’s essentially debating whether they did it or not. That doesn’t make a prosecutor bad.
We larping pigs now?
JFC… Is there anything liberal about the modern moderate democrats?
Disgusting statism and corporatism is all they seem to be about.
They got theirs, fuck everyone else.
No…that’s the Republican Party platform. The current Democratic Party is very much about make the government work for the people and do at least something to reign in the rich and corporations
do at least something to reign in the rich and corporations
I need whatever this guy is smoking
He’s smoking you lol
I mean there’s been a lot to help corporations and the rich I don’t agree with but the current administration has also given tons of resources to the IRS to claw back evaded taxes from the wealthy, made moves to bust monopolies and price-fixing practices, and while they aren’t directly responsible there has been a historic expansion of unions not seen in my lifetime
Also, there’s a reason why conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to stop every attempt he’s made at student loan forgiveness…
And even still, his administration has managed to find several novel ways that has allowed them to eliminate billions in student loans despite all of that.
acab… But prosecutors aren’t cops and if your simple brain can’t comprehend the difference, then I don’t know what to tell you. Our society would not function without people in roles that enforce the laws that our government passes.
I would love to hear how you would go about punishing/rehabilitating/removing from society a murderer justly and fairly without prosecutors. Truly, I’m all ears.
🤡
Just because us system “seperates” them as some sort of check on each other, it is clearly not working in practice.
Look at how the system actually functions not what propaganda says.
Sure the meme is Kamala can be a terrible President, but I would vote for a Ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power ?
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.
It didn’t happen to FDR.
Yeah but he didn’t integrate the population racially so he got to keep power.
I just hope Trump is dead by 2026.
There could always be some other MAGA asshole to fill the void, but the dissolution of Trump’s cult of personality would be a crippling blow.
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.
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.
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.
They’re working on JD Vance to fill the void.
Maybe if that void is the space between the couch cushions.
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.
Hamala
Doubtful on part 1. The senate seems to be flipping red this time. No senate, no new laws. Kamala won’t be able to do shit without the Democrats passing legislation.
I don’t know why you’re being down voted. The Financial Times laid out the same dire situation yesterday. The New York Times said it two days ago. The best she can do in the first term is play defense and home the ground game gets good. But it’s a hard position to be in because people are looking to either winners change. Without legislation, I don’t know how she can do that.
And the protest vote contingent will blame her for it entirely
What’s the protest vote contingent? The third party ppl?
Yup, a frequent refrain of there’s is that the dema should be more effective since they’ve “been on power” multiple times over the last 50 years, during which a grand total of four of those and change featured a majority that could have actually done anything, and which alao had several members that would actively sabotage that majority doing anything.
I mean, that’s a good looking sandwich
You and I have very different ideas of what a good sandwich looks like. I’d still vote for it though.
maybe that’s mortadella that’s cut way too thick? I dunno. I’m with you. It looks more like turkey than ham to me. Not my sammich.
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 is a Zionist so he’d probably start backing Israel with more weapons and escalating the current situation with Iran.
Trump literally said he’d make sure Gaza stops existing.
Although Russian propaganda loves to portray him as being better for the middle east.
Dunk The Vote in Aju
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
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.
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.
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.
“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 because one can be wrong about objective things
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
The slaver?
george samuel washington was so good
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
FDR. Fight me about it.
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?
Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.
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 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.
They asked because they have no rational response to your completely valid points.
Do people really put the veggies underneath the cheese and the meat? Have I been sandwiching wrong my whole life?
The video’s reversed, dummy…
Maybe JD Vance turned the camera upside down.
It’s understandable - how else can he get the media to focus on this sandwich problem?
They’re eating the hoagies! They’re eating the patty melts! THEY’RE EATING THE SANDWICHES IN SPRINGFIELD!
Same with a burger. Your lettuce should be dry (pat it with a paper towel if you must) and put it as the bottom layer. This creates a moisture barrier that stops your bread/bun from turning into a soggy mess.
On a sandwich, the cheese should be on the other side for the same reason. Keep all the wet stuff from turning your bread into slop.
This person sandwiches…
Absolutely correct on all accounts. These are important laws, and many of us have independently arrived at them due to previous errors in sandwich construction.
