“Every previous president would have ended it by now.”

“Biden literally couldn’t do worse.”

  • Melkath
    link
    fedilink
    -246 months ago

    Of all of the self diluted mental gymnastics…

    • Sybil
      link
      -36 months ago

      it’s literally double speak: war is peace, voting for genocide is antigenocide.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        46 months ago

        There are two options: ‘some genocide’, and ‘a lot more genocide’. The race is close, so if not enough people vote for ‘some genocide’, ‘a lot more genocide’ will win. ‘No genocide’ is not one of the options. Do you vote for ‘some genocide’, or do you assent to letting ‘a lot more genocide’ win?

        • Sybil
          link
          -16 months ago

          I’m going to vote for a candidate that wants no genocide.

          • bobburger
            link
            fedilink
            66 months ago

            Will that actually help reduce genocide or just satisfy your need to be self righteous?

            • Sybil
              link
              -16 months ago

              I don’t believe any vote will reduce genocide. ballots don’t stop bullets.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            56 months ago

            As I said, ‘No genocide’ is not one of the two options that’s going to win. The race is close, not voting for ‘less genocide’ only helps ‘lots of genocide’. So you’re helping ‘lots of genocide’ beat ‘less genocide’, congrats.

            • Sybil
              link
              -26 months ago

              voting against genocide doesn’t help genocide. this is pure doublespeak.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                36 months ago

                Voting against genocide doesn’t reduce genocide. In American elections, the only votes that have an effect are those for one of the two front-runners. Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners. The two front-runners are ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’. Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable. Q.E.D. you accept lots of genocide.

                • Sybil
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable.

                  no. i don’t find either of those acceptable. that doesn’t make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    46 months ago

                    Unfortunately the American electoral system is not ranked choice, so “bar of acceptability” isn’t a functionally meaningful concept. In American elections, the situation is as I’ve described above. Refusing to choose one of the two primary options functionally means you find both primary options equally acceptable.

                • Sybil
                  link
                  -26 months ago

                  Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners.

                  false dichotomy

                  • @Hamartia
                    link
                    26 months ago

                    Loving your dauntless energy. Nothing gives a bully the shits quite like looking them in the eye.