The problem with your reply is that you’re focusing on a single tree and missing the entire forest around it.
If you just take the words only at face value, then yes, I suppose you’re right. However, apathy ABSOLUTELY loses people elections, which is what the spirit of my statement for all intents and purposes actually says. That’s why we got suck with Trump in the first place - people were lukewarm on Hilary and mad that Bernie wasn’t the candidate. They decided NOT to vote, and the crazy kook republicans always vote, so we got stuck with trump.
In this scenario, bidens a relatively neutral candidate other than Israel, his age and ICE, though he’s better than his presumptive opponent about all three (trumps in worse shape, even if he’s younger).
What if he were a much worse candidate? If Biden were exactly like trump in every way, except, say, he was super supportive of POWs, would it be our duty to vote for him?
This is not a gotcha, though I know it sounds like one. Obviously there’s a scenario in which the other side (assuming they hold their view earnestly) would vote for an okay, but not ideal candidate (for example, I know a bunch of anticapitalists who were ready to vote for Bernie in 2016, had that been an option, even though he does at his core seem to support a capitalist system with more guardrails in place), so it’s entirely reasonable for you to be generally okay for voting for the lesser of two evils and still have a line you won’t cross.
Good voters don’t vote against their principles or self-interests. Ironically, you are breaking democracy by trying to force people to vote for candidates they don’t like; in a democracy, you vote for someone, not against them.
Any democracy that forces people to choose between a genocide-enabler and a rapist genocide-enabler isn’t a democracy worth saving. It’s the logical conclusion to the “experiment” and hopefully future generations can learn something from it, but you’re kidding yourself if you think that this is the election that will decide things once and for all, rather than just postponing things back another 4 years.
I hope you will take a bit of time to really think through this part of your comment. If you truly think this, then I have nothing more to discuss with you. This is part of the larger problem.
We’re forced due to our shitty first-past-the-post voting system to vote one of two ways, vote against the worst guy in your opinion, or abstain from voting and not contribute at all.
We’re voting between
an extremely old guy who hasn’t been everyone’s favorite in many areas, but arguably has done a LOT of good things in his time as President - and
an extremely old guy who is a rapist, racketeering liar and a con man who only cares about self preservation, and fleecing you for every buck you’re worth to bankroll his court costs for running up (so far) nearly 100 state and federal felonies. He also is fiercely delaying his trials so he can corruptly make it go away so that Justice isn’t carried out, because he should be King and completely above the law. Not to mention his party ACTUALLY cheats at election through intimidation, voter suppression, gerrymandering, and misinformation campaigns.
How could someone even think that’s not a no-brainer decision? I’m not forcing anyone to do anything, what I’m saying is that I believe people that aren’t making the obvious right choice here are part of the problem. Bad guys standing next to bad guys, ignorant/brainless/brainwashed Republicans and abstinent voters. Might as well be the same person if you’re not helping to remedy this clear issue with your vote.
Just my opinion, but I know it’s shared with many that clearly align with doing the right thing this November.
I’m challenging the collective “you” to do the right thing, regardless of your political affiliation. The game has two participants and only one can be the winner. Don’t inject extra complexity here. Do the right thing. That’s it. Should be a super easy choice.
The problem with your reply is that you’re focusing on a single tree and missing the entire forest around it.
If you just take the words only at face value, then yes, I suppose you’re right. However, apathy ABSOLUTELY loses people elections, which is what the spirit of my statement for all intents and purposes actually says. That’s why we got suck with Trump in the first place - people were lukewarm on Hilary and mad that Bernie wasn’t the candidate. They decided NOT to vote, and the crazy kook republicans always vote, so we got stuck with trump.
My comment stands and is accurate.
In this scenario, bidens a relatively neutral candidate other than Israel, his age and ICE, though he’s better than his presumptive opponent about all three (trumps in worse shape, even if he’s younger).
What if he were a much worse candidate? If Biden were exactly like trump in every way, except, say, he was super supportive of POWs, would it be our duty to vote for him?
This is not a gotcha, though I know it sounds like one. Obviously there’s a scenario in which the other side (assuming they hold their view earnestly) would vote for an okay, but not ideal candidate (for example, I know a bunch of anticapitalists who were ready to vote for Bernie in 2016, had that been an option, even though he does at his core seem to support a capitalist system with more guardrails in place), so it’s entirely reasonable for you to be generally okay for voting for the lesser of two evils and still have a line you won’t cross.
Good candidates don’t build voter apathy.
Good voters don’t get apathetic, they understand what’s truly at stake because they see the forest, not just a single tree.
It’s our duty to vote, even if we have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
@kmartburrito @PP_BOY_ I agree
deleted by creator
Good voters don’t vote against their principles or self-interests. Ironically, you are breaking democracy by trying to force people to vote for candidates they don’t like; in a democracy, you vote for someone, not against them.
Any democracy that forces people to choose between a genocide-enabler and a rapist genocide-enabler isn’t a democracy worth saving. It’s the logical conclusion to the “experiment” and hopefully future generations can learn something from it, but you’re kidding yourself if you think that this is the election that will decide things once and for all, rather than just postponing things back another 4 years.
You’re wrong, mate, and I hope you realize that before it’s time to go to the urns.
I hope you will take a bit of time to really think through this part of your comment. If you truly think this, then I have nothing more to discuss with you. This is part of the larger problem.
We’re forced due to our shitty first-past-the-post voting system to vote one of two ways, vote against the worst guy in your opinion, or abstain from voting and not contribute at all.
We’re voting between
an extremely old guy who hasn’t been everyone’s favorite in many areas, but arguably has done a LOT of good things in his time as President - and
an extremely old guy who is a rapist, racketeering liar and a con man who only cares about self preservation, and fleecing you for every buck you’re worth to bankroll his court costs for running up (so far) nearly 100 state and federal felonies. He also is fiercely delaying his trials so he can corruptly make it go away so that Justice isn’t carried out, because he should be King and completely above the law. Not to mention his party ACTUALLY cheats at election through intimidation, voter suppression, gerrymandering, and misinformation campaigns.
How could someone even think that’s not a no-brainer decision? I’m not forcing anyone to do anything, what I’m saying is that I believe people that aren’t making the obvious right choice here are part of the problem. Bad guys standing next to bad guys, ignorant/brainless/brainwashed Republicans and abstinent voters. Might as well be the same person if you’re not helping to remedy this clear issue with your vote.
Just my opinion, but I know it’s shared with many that clearly align with doing the right thing this November.
I’m challenging the collective “you” to do the right thing, regardless of your political affiliation. The game has two participants and only one can be the winner. Don’t inject extra complexity here. Do the right thing. That’s it. Should be a super easy choice.