You’re the one stuck in black and white thinking. Any Democrat is better than any Republican, by definition. You would canvass for Mussolini if his opponent was Hitler.
That’s entirely false. Read my comment history. I spend most of my time on Lemmy trying to engage people in the primary process to unseat the corporate centrists.
Regarding the 2024 election, the Palestinians had two options. Bad, and worse. By refusing to choose, they were going to get worse. People like you would rather not put their names on bad, and let the Palestinians get worse, so they’d have a clear conscience.
You still don’t have any red lines though. There’s nothing a candidate could do, no behavior so monstrous, no atrocities so grand that would ever make you not vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, you would vote for Mussolini if he was running against Hitler.
If not, where is your red line? What would a Democrat have to do before you would refuse to vote for them, regardless of who they were running against?
There’s nothing a candidate could do, no behavior so monstrous, no atrocities so grand that would ever make you not vote for the lesser of two evils.
Yeah that’s basic moral judgement. You realize that the alternative to the lesser evil is the greater evil, yeah? For as grand and magnificent as the atrocities you’re talking about are, the existence of a greater evil implies even grander and more magnificent atrocities. Given a choice between “grand and magnificent atrocities,” and “grander and more magnificent atrocities,” which would you choose?
Is it worth allowing the grander and more magnificent atrocities to happen just to fool yourself into thinking you had no part in it?
There’s no way to vote against something that both candidates support (eg. genocide).
Your insistence on seeing black and white in a gray world will be your end.
Unfortunately it’s also my end.
They didn’t vote for trump, but they sure as hell voted for this.
You’re the one stuck in black and white thinking. Any Democrat is better than any Republican, by definition. You would canvass for Mussolini if his opponent was Hitler.
That’s entirely false. Read my comment history. I spend most of my time on Lemmy trying to engage people in the primary process to unseat the corporate centrists.
Regarding the 2024 election, the Palestinians had two options. Bad, and worse. By refusing to choose, they were going to get worse. People like you would rather not put their names on bad, and let the Palestinians get worse, so they’d have a clear conscience.
I have no respect for the self-righteous.
You still don’t have any red lines though. There’s nothing a candidate could do, no behavior so monstrous, no atrocities so grand that would ever make you not vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, you would vote for Mussolini if he was running against Hitler.
If not, where is your red line? What would a Democrat have to do before you would refuse to vote for them, regardless of who they were running against?
https://lemmy.world/comment/18013309
-disguy_ovahea@lemmy.word, c. 1939
Yeah that’s basic moral judgement. You realize that the alternative to the lesser evil is the greater evil, yeah? For as grand and magnificent as the atrocities you’re talking about are, the existence of a greater evil implies even grander and more magnificent atrocities. Given a choice between “grand and magnificent atrocities,” and “grander and more magnificent atrocities,” which would you choose?
Is it worth allowing the grander and more magnificent atrocities to happen just to fool yourself into thinking you had no part in it?
If they cared about genocide so much, they should have voted to prevent the one they would trigger back home.
Removed by mod
Medicine*
Removed by mod
Primaries!
If more people voted in primaries we would have probably had president Sanders instead of Trump the first time around