• archomrade [he/him]OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    86 months ago

    I’ll vote for harm reduction if it comes down to it but if democrats want an endorsement they’ll have to do more than what they’re doing now.

    I’m not obligated to encourage anyone to vote for the lesser evil so long as the lesser evil still has an opportunity to be less evil.

    • @PugJesus
      link
      English
      -146 months ago

      I’m not obligated to encourage anyone to vote for the lesser evil so long as the lesser evil still has an opportunity to be less evil.

      Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “As long as the Democrats are not 100% in line with my views, it’s okay to endorse inaction and the takeover of a fascist regime on the pretext that the Democrats Aren’t Good Enough™”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “Some random bullshit I just made up that hardly resembles what you said”

      • archomrade [he/him]OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        76 months ago

        it’s okay to endorse inaction

        What part of my comment was an endorsement of inaction?

        • @PugJesus
          link
          English
          -156 months ago

          I’m not obligated to encourage anyone to vote for the lesser evil so long as the lesser evil still has an opportunity to be less evil.

            • @PugJesus
              link
              English
              -146 months ago

              A lack of endorsement for a thing =! endorsement for the opposite thing

              Oh, when there are only two possible choices, it very much is, whether or not you want to confront that. If there is an infant drowning in an ankle-deep pool in front of you, doing anything other than saving the infant is endorsing its death.

              Before you is a very simple and very easy choice - fascism, or non-fascism. Yet your kind reject non-fascism, every single time. Curious.

              • archomrade [he/him]OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                96 months ago

                Oh, when there are only two possible choices

                Actually in this context there’s at least 4:

                • vote for a candidate AND endorse voting for the candidate
                • don’t vote for a candidate AND don’t endorse voting for the candidate
                • vote for a candidate AND don’t endorse voting for the candidate
                • don’t vote for a candidate AND endorse voting for the candidate

                Nobody has actually ‘voted’ for a candidate yet, all anyone has done thus far is endorse or not endorse voting for a candidate. Just as a reminder:

                I’ll vote for harm reduction if it comes down to it

                • @Dkarma
                  link
                  -26 months ago

                  Only because of the electoral college you’re entirely wrong here.

                  There are only two choices.

                  1. Biden gets to 270 ec votes
                  2. He doesn’t and trump is appointed by Congress or gets to 270

                  There is no other option in the long run.

                • @PugJesus
                  link
                  English
                  -136 months ago

                  Actually in this context there’s at least 4:

                  All of which boil down to “Try to rescue the infant” or “Varying levels of letting the infant drown or hoping someone else will spontaneously see the infant and rescue them in your stead”

      • Nougat
        link
        fedilink
        -16 months ago

        Democrats have to be perfect. Republicans just have to be on the ballot.