It’s ok to not want either but it’s pretty clear which is worse for the world and it’s the one that is encouraging Russia to attack NATO members who they perceive as not pulling their own weight.
Funnily enough that’s the same one that looked at a picture of the perdon they were getting sued by (who was sitting in the same room) and thought it was their ex-wife.
As long as people become trapped in the choice between which one is worse they will be trapped by the false dichotomy. Neither is good, let’s seek better alternatives.
Seeking better alternatives is absolutely what we should do but a general election isn’t the time to do that. The general election is the time to pick which of the two turds is better.
If we really want change at the national level we have to start locally. If a third party candidate wins the presidential election without support in Congress they will have a disastrous term.
Not particularly, but I can at least recognize that electing a third party practically requires getting rid of the electoral college.
If no one gets a majority of EC votes, the winner is picked by the house of representatives. So any third party president needs to get a majority of the vote in a majority of states to win. No third party candidate has ever come remotely close to that.
Under STAR, score, condorcet or IRV? It’s unlikely but possible. With the EC? It’s essentially impossible.
Only one of these two has promised “to be a dictator from day one.” I’ll give you a hint. It’s the same one who said that he’ll encourage Russia to attack NATO countries if he feels that they’re not pulling their weight. It’s the same one whose party released a more than 900 page manifesto last year that included the total destruction of state’s rights so that the federal government can punish state employees who don’t uphold the federal “Don’t Say Gay” law also included in the manifesto, as well as a list of 50,000 federal workers to be replaced with party loyalists.
That’s not the same as not doing enough to fight climate change, not forgiving all student loans, and not having strong enough sanctions against Israel. Oh yeah, the other one opposes doing all 3 of those things at all and, in fact, wants to loosen restrictions on fossil fuel companies and increase the use of oil and coal while decreasing the use of green energy.
Or the agenda of individuals sick of the false dichotomy who want neither asshat
It’s ok to not want either but it’s pretty clear which is worse for the world and it’s the one that is encouraging Russia to attack NATO members who they perceive as not pulling their own weight.
Funnily enough that’s the same one that looked at a picture of the perdon they were getting sued by (who was sitting in the same room) and thought it was their ex-wife.
As long as people become trapped in the choice between which one is worse they will be trapped by the false dichotomy. Neither is good, let’s seek better alternatives.
Seeking better alternatives is absolutely what we should do but a general election isn’t the time to do that. The general election is the time to pick which of the two turds is better.
If we really want change at the national level we have to start locally. If a third party candidate wins the presidential election without support in Congress they will have a disastrous term.
In what possible sense is Trump vs. Biden a “false” dichotomy
People who are under the delusion that their favorite third party candidate can actually win believe some weird shit.
I’m writing in Taylor Swift because she’s going to shake off the world’s problems and make me First Gentleman.
Enjoying the view from under the boot eh?
Not particularly, but I can at least recognize that electing a third party practically requires getting rid of the electoral college.
If no one gets a majority of EC votes, the winner is picked by the house of representatives. So any third party president needs to get a majority of the vote in a majority of states to win. No third party candidate has ever come remotely close to that.
Under STAR, score, condorcet or IRV? It’s unlikely but possible. With the EC? It’s essentially impossible.
Only one of these two has promised “to be a dictator from day one.” I’ll give you a hint. It’s the same one who said that he’ll encourage Russia to attack NATO countries if he feels that they’re not pulling their weight. It’s the same one whose party released a more than 900 page manifesto last year that included the total destruction of state’s rights so that the federal government can punish state employees who don’t uphold the federal “Don’t Say Gay” law also included in the manifesto, as well as a list of 50,000 federal workers to be replaced with party loyalists.
That’s not the same as not doing enough to fight climate change, not forgiving all student loans, and not having strong enough sanctions against Israel. Oh yeah, the other one opposes doing all 3 of those things at all and, in fact, wants to loosen restrictions on fossil fuel companies and increase the use of oil and coal while decreasing the use of green energy.
I hope Russia pays you well, at least.
I am saying there’s a real dichotomy between them
I.e. a difference (in this case about as stark a difference as you could possibly imagine in a wildly exaggerated dystopian fantasy)
I.e. I am saying what you are saying
Oops, my bad. I misread that as saying it actually is a false dichotomy.
Yep all good
This is why you don’t read social media until you’ve had breakfast. Otherwise, you make mistakes like that. 😟