False dichotomy and incorrect question. It doesn’t matter who wins the next presidency. the general outcomes will be the same.
will both candidates break strikes when convenient to their corporate overlords? yes.
will both candidates continue to drain our economy by not reforming health care/holding corporations accountable? yes. (as demonstrated by harris’ unwillingness to commit to keeping khan)
will both candidates continue to support israel wholeheartedly? yes.
the only different is the speed of the decline. frankly I’m done emotionally suffering because the national democrats are shit people. you’re welcome to your positions and beliefs I just have no interest in supporting them when all they do is cause more harm to my communities. I also live in a blue bastion, harris’ will win here regardless of my actions and my local government will more or less prevent the worst of trumps nonsense for my community.
yawn absolutely false. You have other options. you’re just too afraid to exercise them. That’s a you issue, you are willing to put up with harris/biden committing genocide and breaking strikes because you’re scared of trump. I’m not. and yes, I’m aware of the mathematics behind FTFP. sadly fortunately they dont apply in my state.
write to your congress critters telling them to support weapon bans and to push harris. I’ve done this have you?
ensure your local government is well populated with non-maga’s. I’ve done this have you?
You’re controlled by fear. I’m not. My state is well insulated from trump and SCOTUS. If democrats and harris want to win they need to enforce the leahy act at a minimum. If harris wants to be the law and order candidate then she needs to move on these issues. she won’t sadly but thats a her problem, not a me problem.
You also clearly dont understand ‘both sides’ critique. there are clear differences between the candidates. harris is clearly superior. she just isn’t superior enough to overlook committing genocide and breaking strikes. for you she clearly is. that is a you issue.
Given the restraints (either Dem or Rep will win) the logical thing to do is harm reduction. That is, unless you believe Trump will be better in this regard in which case I don’t think we’ll agree on much.
and that there is only this one, totalizing crossroad of literal, immediate survival.
This was me saying “It frames things as though losing the election means that all is lost and there won’t be future elections.”
As I’m pretty sure I explained to you an hour ago in another thread, I think it’s an acceptable loss for the Democrats to lose an election to put pressure on them to change or else to establish that they are more loyal to the US project of Israel than they are to trying to win elections or do what voters want or anything like that.
I don’t proactively want Trump to win, but I find it totally acceptable since what sets him apart from other Republicans is not that he is especially fascist in the substance of what he is likely to do. It might actually be possible to browbeat me if we had a Tom “throne of Chinese skulls” Cotton or someone as the nominee, he actually represents something that could be totalizing to me, but Trump is just kind of a deranged grifter and Vance is a more even-keel grifter.
So to save us both time, no, I don’t think we agree on any points. I wasn’t commenting toward that end, I merely wanted to say that the comic is unhelpful.
Did you even read what I said? I directly acknowledged that the logical implication of my strategy is that Trump is more likely to win the upcoming election because I’m interested in how subsequent elections will be impacted. The calculus of “Always vote for the nearest viable candidate” is liberal dogma, yes, but it’s not the only strategy and I find it to be a bad long-term strategy, because it just incentivizes an accelerating rightward drift from the “left” candidate, leaving you with two right candidates.
Despite needing to re-explain myself, I took what you said at face value and not as just being condescending wank, and now I guess I have egg on my face for my trouble.
Maybe we should see if there’s any point of agreement, one step at a time.
Do you agree that either the Dem or Rep nominee will be the next president?
False dichotomy and incorrect question. It doesn’t matter who wins the next presidency. the general outcomes will be the same.
will both candidates break strikes when convenient to their corporate overlords? yes. will both candidates continue to drain our economy by not reforming health care/holding corporations accountable? yes. (as demonstrated by harris’ unwillingness to commit to keeping khan) will both candidates continue to support israel wholeheartedly? yes.
the only different is the speed of the decline. frankly I’m done emotionally suffering because the national democrats are shit people. you’re welcome to your positions and beliefs I just have no interest in supporting them when all they do is cause more harm to my communities. I also live in a blue bastion, harris’ will win here regardless of my actions and my local government will more or less prevent the worst of trumps nonsense for my community.
A dichotomy, yes. A false one? No. I personally guarantee the next president will be either the Dem or Rep nominee.
Save this post and come back after the election. If you believe differently, I will give you very good odds on a bet.
The rest of your comment is common “muh both sides” dog shit.
yawn absolutely false. You have other options. you’re just too afraid to exercise them. That’s a you issue, you are willing to put up with harris/biden committing genocide and breaking strikes because you’re scared of trump. I’m not. and yes, I’m aware of the mathematics behind FTFP. sadly fortunately they dont apply in my state.
You’re controlled by fear. I’m not. My state is well insulated from trump and SCOTUS. If democrats and harris want to win they need to enforce the leahy act at a minimum. If harris wants to be the law and order candidate then she needs to move on these issues. she won’t sadly but thats a her problem, not a me problem.
You also clearly dont understand ‘both sides’ critique. there are clear differences between the candidates. harris is clearly superior. she just isn’t superior enough to overlook committing genocide and breaking strikes. for you she clearly is. that is a you issue.
Do you agree that theres no excuse possible for aiding in a far right wing genocide?
No.
Given the restraints (either Dem or Rep will win) the logical thing to do is harm reduction. That is, unless you believe Trump will be better in this regard in which case I don’t think we’ll agree on much.
Now answer mine.
When I said:
This was me saying “It frames things as though losing the election means that all is lost and there won’t be future elections.”
As I’m pretty sure I explained to you an hour ago in another thread, I think it’s an acceptable loss for the Democrats to lose an election to put pressure on them to change or else to establish that they are more loyal to the US project of Israel than they are to trying to win elections or do what voters want or anything like that.
I don’t proactively want Trump to win, but I find it totally acceptable since what sets him apart from other Republicans is not that he is especially fascist in the substance of what he is likely to do. It might actually be possible to browbeat me if we had a Tom “throne of Chinese skulls” Cotton or someone as the nominee, he actually represents something that could be totalizing to me, but Trump is just kind of a deranged grifter and Vance is a more even-keel grifter.
So to save us both time, no, I don’t think we agree on any points. I wasn’t commenting toward that end, I merely wanted to say that the comic is unhelpful.
When you know how FPTP voting works but don’t want to admit what it means ^
Did you even read what I said? I directly acknowledged that the logical implication of my strategy is that Trump is more likely to win the upcoming election because I’m interested in how subsequent elections will be impacted. The calculus of “Always vote for the nearest viable candidate” is liberal dogma, yes, but it’s not the only strategy and I find it to be a bad long-term strategy, because it just incentivizes an accelerating rightward drift from the “left” candidate, leaving you with two right candidates.
Despite needing to re-explain myself, I took what you said at face value and not as just being condescending wank, and now I guess I have egg on my face for my trouble.