You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point
*

I’m noting that expecting people to vote for the least bad candidate here is easily rectified by the Dems choosing someone less terrible. The base would vote for a pickle sandwich if it had a blue sticker on it. As such, choosing someone who appeals to swing allies is the right move.

Biden, whatever value he has, does not appear to have that appeal. So if winning is important, Democrats hold the key. Choose someone less repugnant to swing voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Again, that’s just saying someone better than Biden would be better. I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince that wouldn’t agree with you.

I expect people to vote intelligently based on the outcome they want. If there’s 2 outcomes and they don’t want outcome A, they should vote for B. Complaining that B isn’t sparkly and written in glitter doesn’t change the fact that they don’t want outcome A more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And that’s why we have two terrible candidates.

If choices A and B are both bad and team B has full control of who they’re fielding, rewarding them for choosing poorly perpetuates the same. If they’re too blind or arrogant to see that B is losing them the contest, then that’s their own fault.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What a weird take. You’re not rewarding anybody. You’re choosing who will be the next president. You’re making a choice that will affect you and millions of other people.

I said previously I expect people to vote intelligently. You seem to be implying that allowing Trump to win just to spite the Democratic party for choosing Biden is somehow a rational choice.

You brought up blind arrogance.

Imagine being so blind that you fail to see that the outcome of a Trump victory would be devastatingly worse for yourself and for the world. That you’d be supporting an outcome that leads to more and worse genocide, despite that being a “single issue” for you. That’s blind.

Imagine being so arrogant that you’d choose the path that leads to more genocide and greater global suffering, despite genocide apparently being a “single issue” for you, simply to punish a political party made up of millions of people because they didn’t field the candidate you wanted them to. You said yourself: “The Democrats have a membership of millions.” Yet you are the one stamping your feet and threatening that if they choose Biden, you’re going to vote against him just to spite them. And help bring about more genocide, despite that apparently being important to you. That’s arrogance.

You don’t have to like Biden, you just have to prefer the outcome of a Biden victory over the outcome of a Trump victory. It’s akin to choosing between lima beans or rusty nails for everyone’s dinner. You don’t have to like lima beans, but if you are so arrogant to choose the rusty nails for everybody because you don’t want lima beans, you’re blind to how you will hurt others and yourself.

I’m sorry man, but you need to take a big step back, read everything that you wrote, and apply it to your own position. Then think on the actual outcomes that the two paths before you lead towards.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 283K

    Comments