Candidate 2: I’m going to give guns and money to the person killing ponies but tell them they shouldn’t do it.
Leftist: Either way ponies are going to be killed. Let’s try something different.
Centrist: Noooo, you have to vote for the proxy pony killer who can’t use his position to do anything or else you’ll get a pony killer in power who’ll use his position to do everything.
Do y’all just, sincerely not understand what “lesser evil” means? Yes, the lesser evil is still bad. We know. That’s what “evil” means. Both options suck, one sucks measurably more, so you choose the one that is less bad.
None of these “Both sides!” Leftists ever seem to offer specific or workable alternatives. It’s always something vague like “Have our voices be heard, take back the country from the oligarchs!” And I feel that, but like, how? What specific candidate or action is going to prevent both from winning?
You said it so perfectly and I never realized it. “If you elect our guy, he won’t be able to do anything, but at least it’s better than if you elect the other guy. If you elect the other guy, somehow he’ll be able to do everything he wants. But vote for our impotent guy instead. It’s safe!”
One follows the rules, and the other often doesn’t even think there are rules. The difference there isn’t hard to suss out. It’s like that joke about playing chess with a pigeon.
Because not thinking there are rules into adulthood is a pretty self-absorbed trait, which usually doesn’t go along with things like empathy and compassion.
A socialist with that same attitude towards rules, norms, and civility would be the ideal option. That isn’t possible under our system. However, a fascist with those views is possible.
And the neoliberal erosion of living standards will just make the fascists more appealing to normal people. So if the fascists don’t win in 2024 then they’ll win in the near future unless we have a massive expansion of the welfare state that helps median Americans, not just the incredibly poor
You literally can’t try something different, in this election. It’s physically impossible. Leftists should be channeling this energy to the next election, and building a viable candidate that truly meets their needs.
Candidate 2: I’m going to give guns and money to the person killing ponies but tell them they shouldn’t do it.
Leftist: Either way ponies are going to be killed. Let’s try something different.
Centrist: Noooo, you have to vote for the proxy pony killer who can’t use his position to do anything or else you’ll get a pony killer in power who’ll use his position to do everything.
“Something different” here meaning “handing over the position to the worse of the two options”.
Acting like Candidate 1 won’t do the same and worse
Acting like candidate 2 is at all a good option either.
Would you rather get stabbed in the finger or stabbed in the eye?
I’d rather stab the person trying to stab me anywhere.
You’re getting stabbed whatever happens.
Would you rather get stabbed in the finger or stabbed in the eye?
The third option is to reject the United States and replace it with something that isn’t an oligarchy
So, the eye
Neither.
There is always other options, you just have to take them.
There aren’t. There are only two possible outcomes.
Stabbed in the finger or stabbed in the eye?
lmao
Have fun losing more rights instead of compromising on Biden becsuse he isn’t 100% perfect.
Have fun refusing to admit Biden is flawed.
Surely the status quo is the solution to stopping Trump and the growing threat of the right.
Do y’all just, sincerely not understand what “lesser evil” means? Yes, the lesser evil is still bad. We know. That’s what “evil” means. Both options suck, one sucks measurably more, so you choose the one that is less bad.
None of these “Both sides!” Leftists ever seem to offer specific or workable alternatives. It’s always something vague like “Have our voices be heard, take back the country from the oligarchs!” And I feel that, but like, how? What specific candidate or action is going to prevent both from winning?
deleted by creator
You said it so perfectly and I never realized it. “If you elect our guy, he won’t be able to do anything, but at least it’s better than if you elect the other guy. If you elect the other guy, somehow he’ll be able to do everything he wants. But vote for our impotent guy instead. It’s safe!”
Um what?
One follows the rules, and the other often doesn’t even think there are rules. The difference there isn’t hard to suss out. It’s like that joke about playing chess with a pigeon.
I want a guy who doesn’t think there are rules, and will protect ponies. Why isn’t that a possibility
Because not thinking there are rules into adulthood is a pretty self-absorbed trait, which usually doesn’t go along with things like empathy and compassion.
There aren’t rules. Trump is proof of that
A socialist with that same attitude towards rules, norms, and civility would be the ideal option. That isn’t possible under our system. However, a fascist with those views is possible.
And the neoliberal erosion of living standards will just make the fascists more appealing to normal people. So if the fascists don’t win in 2024 then they’ll win in the near future unless we have a massive expansion of the welfare state that helps median Americans, not just the incredibly poor
You literally can’t try something different, in this election. It’s physically impossible. Leftists should be channeling this energy to the next election, and building a viable candidate that truly meets their needs.