Yes, it’s important to stop Trump. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Harris has your best interests at heart. She sees the people as a tool she must convince to get into a position of power. Not as someone who she should serve.
I won’t argue over whether she does have my best interests at heart. It. Does. Not. Matter.
I don’t want to marry her, I want her to keep Trump out of office - and right now, she is the only one who can.
Fun fact: Most exterminators don’t have your best interest in mind - they just want to make a living. Yet, they do keep the bedbugs away, so it’s all good.
America when it comes to electing the most powerful person on the planet: well as long as we don’t elect the fat pants shitting criminal rapist liar again we’re doing a pretty good job.
It’s a little bit below the absolute bare minimum a democracy has to offer but the struggle is still real.
In my opinion, this is not the dichotomy that is present because a democracy should have more than one option. If there is only a single sane party to vote for then you don’t actually have a choice. Democracy is supposed to be about choice. Additionally, in my opinion, both parties support genocide and I think this because they both support israel and israel is carrying out a campaign of genocide, as determined by multiple experts on the matter. When the only parties that have a chance getting any power both support something as horrific as genocide, I feel this cannot be considered a democracy.
I have read all the sentences, and I agree with the first one.
What I felt needed a little commentary was the rest. See, minds more impressionable than yours and mine may come to the conclusion that voting is pointless if you can only vote for the lesser evil.
I don’t know whether she is better than you think she is - my point was that it doesn’t matter, and that speculating, postulating and pontificating about how she may not be as good as we want her to be just turns people off of voting. Which would be bad.
Decades of civil service would beg to differ. Of course all politicians in a democracy need to sway voters to vote for them, but it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents. Unless you’re saying that this is something mostly unique to her, which is equally silly. I have my doubts about how much of her campaign promises can actually be delivered on, mostly due to congressional Republicans who will definitely stonewall everything possible, but it’s outrageous to claim without any supporting evidence that Harris is uninterested in serving the people when she’s already been doing so for her entire career.
it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents.
It’s a harsh oversimplification, but yes: Most politicians primarily focus on maintaining their own power. Claiming to have the best interest of their constituents at heart is one strategy to achieve that.
without any supporting evidence
Why would she be different than centuries of historical precedent?
Yes, it’s important to stop Trump. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that Harris has your best interests at heart. She sees the people as a tool she must convince to get into a position of power. Not as someone who she should serve.
I won’t argue over whether she does have my best interests at heart. It. Does. Not. Matter.
I don’t want to marry her, I want her to keep Trump out of office - and right now, she is the only one who can.
Fun fact: Most exterminators don’t have your best interest in mind - they just want to make a living. Yet, they do keep the bedbugs away, so it’s all good.
America when it comes to electing the most powerful person on the planet: well as long as we don’t elect the fat pants shitting criminal rapist liar again we’re doing a pretty good job.
It’s a little bit below the absolute bare minimum a democracy has to offer but the struggle is still real.
Democracy vs autocracy send a very different and way more important dichotomy.
In my opinion, this is not the dichotomy that is present because a democracy should have more than one option. If there is only a single sane party to vote for then you don’t actually have a choice. Democracy is supposed to be about choice. Additionally, in my opinion, both parties support genocide and I think this because they both support israel and israel is carrying out a campaign of genocide, as determined by multiple experts on the matter. When the only parties that have a chance getting any power both support something as horrific as genocide, I feel this cannot be considered a democracy.
Removed by mod
It seems you didn’t read my first sentence. OP implied that Harris will do positive things. She will not. She is nothing more than the lesser evil.
I have read all the sentences, and I agree with the first one.
What I felt needed a little commentary was the rest. See, minds more impressionable than yours and mine may come to the conclusion that voting is pointless if you can only vote for the lesser evil.
I don’t know whether she is better than you think she is - my point was that it doesn’t matter, and that speculating, postulating and pontificating about how she may not be as good as we want her to be just turns people off of voting. Which would be bad.
That was my whole point.
Get off your high horse.
Also: how many people will make their decision for the election based on /c/politicalmemes?
Removed by mod
Harris could sit in the Oval Office and spin around in her chair for four years and still be an immeasurably better president than Trump.
OP’s statement was that she’ll do more than that. I agree that she’s better than Trump. What are you trying to tell me that I haven’t already stated?
Decades of civil service would beg to differ. Of course all politicians in a democracy need to sway voters to vote for them, but it’s absurdly cynical to believe that no politician in any democracy ever has given any fucks about the well-being of their constituents. Unless you’re saying that this is something mostly unique to her, which is equally silly. I have my doubts about how much of her campaign promises can actually be delivered on, mostly due to congressional Republicans who will definitely stonewall everything possible, but it’s outrageous to claim without any supporting evidence that Harris is uninterested in serving the people when she’s already been doing so for her entire career.
It’s a harsh oversimplification, but yes: Most politicians primarily focus on maintaining their own power. Claiming to have the best interest of their constituents at heart is one strategy to achieve that.
Why would she be different than centuries of historical precedent?