Why is the default argument from liberals always ‘but Trump?’ Harris would have been a shit candidate not worthy of being elected regardless of who her opponent was.
Why was she the only other option? Is there something wrong with how we count our votes that artificially restricts the number of viable political parties?
Yes, our electoral system guarantees only 2 parties are viable. Whether that’s good or not is irrelevant, because it’s the system that was in place for this election.
Why is the default argument from liberals always ‘but Trump?’ Harris would have been a shit candidate not worthy of being elected regardless of who her opponent was.
Because she wouldn’t have been shit. Your argument is invalid.
That doesn’t matter. She was the only other option we had
She was forced as the only choice on voters and liberals find that acceptable
Removed by mod
It doesn’t matter. She was the choice we had.
Why was she the only other option? Is there something wrong with how we count our votes that artificially restricts the number of viable political parties?
Yes, our electoral system guarantees only 2 parties are viable. Whether that’s good or not is irrelevant, because it’s the system that was in place for this election.
Harris was going to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. Why the fuck would you NOT vote for that?
And if she said that she was going to give everybody rainbows and lollipops you would believe that you were going to get a rainbow and lollipop.
False analogy. Clinton, Obama, and Biden – all 3 of the last Dem presidents – kept their promises to raise taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations.
Realty matters.
And gave them more loopholes to avoid those increases.