Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Gas would probably still be under $3/gal, so I’d be more willing to drive and get brunch, yes.
Also the brunch wouldn’t have salmonella, and the side salad wouldn’t have explosive diarrhea.
But you’re right. It would be pretty bad. I don’t this she would give me a free pony, nor would she dissolve the state in favor of an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
Meanwhile all the people in America who have suffered systematically for decades would continue to suffer systematically. No denying things would have been great under Kamala for people who were privileged all along.
If the people suffering systematically is a constant between the two options, then how is it relevant to the choice? Rational people make choices based on the differences in outcomes between the options.
Haven’t we seen a significant uptick in the systematic suffering of historically suffering people under this administration? Between “the status quo” and “worse than the status quo”, isn’t the status quo the best short term solution if you actually care about the people who are suffering? Is their suffering reduced in any way because you make a principled stand against the status quo?
It seems like you’re just feeding marginalized people to fascists in exchange for getting to say you didn’t vote for the neo-lib. I don’t see how that helps the marginalized people, seems like something a privileged person would do because they can afford to not care about the result of elections.
This is like saying “if my infected wound is going to sting whether I leave it alone or put disinfectant on it, then how is it relevant to the choice?” The answer is that one of the choices, while still shitty and possibly even more painful, creates the possibility for a better future despite the present.
Voting for the corporate neolibs IS what makes more fascist candidates viable. Not voting for them is what forces the party to offer legitimate opposition to fascism and representation of the lower class. Yes, abstaining makes things worse in the short term, in exchange for the possibility of making things better in the long term.
The only reason Trump was ever a viable candidate is because of people using your reasoning being unwilling to take that short term bitter pill for the last 40 years.
I love when people trot out this argument, because it’s exactly what you’re doing, on a LARGER scale and in a subtler way than you accuse me of doing.
I didn’t skip voting so I could win some community respect. It’s not exactly a popular stance (unlike yours) in case you haven’t noticed. I did it despite the economic, safety, AND social consequences because I truly believe it was the only way to make the possibility of a better future.
I have the right to decide to suffer the sting of disinfectant, it’s my body. I don’t have the right to condemn others for the sake of political expedience.
No it doesn’t. When has it ever done that? Typically it just pushes them right to try to get more centrists.
Vote for the leftists in the primary. That’s what forces them. You don’t appeal to them, you annex them.
Not voting is literally doing nothing. It is not the crystal clear communication signal you think it is, it’s literally nothing.
Correct.
Of course, they’re still suffering under Trump, and now they get to pay twice as much for gas. Maybe the explosive diarrhea provides an alternative, rocket-powered form of transportation?
I’m also sure that you give a great many fucks about the poor and the downtrodden. The bigliest of fucks.
I give more fucks than you since I was willing to make my life worse in order to create the possibility for an eventual actual turnaround in the Democratic Party. And lo and behold we now have the most progressive representation in nearly a century in New York - even then with an uphill battle against the establishment. Meanwhile you were only willing to vote for the person that would maintain your personal comfortable status quo, everyone else be damned. Keep on projecting “bigly”, clever boy
Well, it would have also maintained the status quo for the people of Iran. Which by extension would probably have maintained the status quo for people in Lebanon, Syria, parts of the West Bank…ya know, greater Israel.
I’m sure those 100-150ish elementary school girls in that one Iranian school, not to mention thousands of others, are moved by your suffering.
Moved rapidly into multiple pieces, then collected and moved to a graveyard, that is. They thank you for your sacrifice, certain in your heroism.
Wait, I thought the suffering of third-worlders was NOT supposed to be a deal-breaker for Kamala fans? 😂
No, I think you just made that up to justify creating more suffering at home and abroad.
I hope you’re proud.
I made it up? It must have been a hallucination when all the people who didn’t vote for Kamala for her stance on the genocide in Palestine were called “purity testers” who were letting the “perfect be the enemy of the good”? Come on. Don’t act like you aren’t aware of this. It was one of the biggest contributors to her election loss and one of the issues that vote-abstainers are most constantly criticized for. I just made it up? You’re fooling nobody.
Okay…so now they get to also feel proud about making the genocide worse. Like the people that convinced them not to vote. like you.
At least take pride in the fact that you get to kill more brown people, dude. I have more respect for someone who wears a maga hat proudly. Not this cowardly shit.