What are people supposed to do when each election is close enough that any loss of support means handing over the presidency to an authoritarian wannabe?
I’m sure many would like to hold him to a higher standard, but the risk of ending up with a fascist as president is way too high.
You can support politicians without doing so blindly and unquestioningly. In fact, complacency like yours is one of the main factors that caused the conditions that made something as bizarrely awful as a Trump candidacy viable.
The only option is to continue to vote for the least-bad candidates, and work to change the voting system such that a two party system is no longer inevitable.
I see that you’re aggressively ignoring the point in favor of the very false dichotomy I’m on the record as fed up with.
To list the thousands of better things to do than either a) reflexively defend Biden no matter how wrong his stance is or b) vote for Trump would take a lot of time and effort better used in other ways than speaking to wilfully deaf ears.
Fortunately, improving my Lemmy experience by adding you to the aforementioned list after adding a user note to remind me why takes significantly less of both than even writing this reply.
What are people supposed to do when each election is close enough that any loss of support means handing over the presidency to an authoritarian wannabe?
I’m sure many would like to hold him to a higher standard, but the risk of ending up with a fascist as president is way too high.
There you go with the false equivalency.
You can support politicians without doing so blindly and unquestioningly. In fact, complacency like yours is one of the main factors that caused the conditions that made something as bizarrely awful as a Trump candidacy viable.
But you have a two party system?
Are you still going to vote dem then and just keep making empty threats about not voting for them while requesting ceasefire?
What are your other options here?
The only option is to continue to vote for the least-bad candidates, and work to change the voting system such that a two party system is no longer inevitable.
Yeah, because that strategy has been working SO well so far… 🤦
What was it Einstein supposedly said about the definition of insanity?
I mean, the other other option is violence/terrorism.
When peaceful revolution is made impossible, violent revolution is inevitable.
But the outcome is wildly unpredictable. You can easily end up with a worse result than what you had before.
I see that you’re aggressively ignoring the point in favor of the very false dichotomy I’m on the record as fed up with.
To list the thousands of better things to do than either a) reflexively defend Biden no matter how wrong his stance is or b) vote for Trump would take a lot of time and effort better used in other ways than speaking to wilfully deaf ears.
Fortunately, improving my Lemmy experience by adding you to the aforementioned list after adding a user note to remind me why takes significantly less of both than even writing this reply.
You keep avoiding the question. If i don’t know the point you’re making, I can’t be ignoring it.
What is the point you are trying to make here?
I don’t care about all the ways you are not making your point, you’ve listed those already.
The title of the thread reads “no ceasefire, no votes”.
If the Democratic nominee doesn’t win, who wins?