| |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Both sides are bad. One is worse. Both lead America rapidly downhill. One does it faster. | | |
| ▲ | orwin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | From an external point of view, one side is at least trying. Ranked choice voting, "no corporate money in politics" and other initiative like this, to add more democracy, suddenly come out on my news feed and each time i say to myself "it won't work right now, but at least it seems those are steps in the correct direction". Supporting the people who run on those platform is infinitely better than a destructive nihilism. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | One side is trying to destroy America, the other is sitting by and prioritising maintaining decorum and insider trading off the destruction of America that's already happening. I don't know who's running on the platform you just said. | | |
| ▲ | sheikhnbake a day ago | parent [-] | | There are quite a few democratic socialists running on that platform across the country. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throw0101d a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Both sides are bad. There were (then-)members of the Republican party who voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris: > Conservative author David Frum, a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, announced Wednesday that he cast an early vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. * https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-fr... > But she is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. She may bend some rules for her own and her supporters’ advantage. She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others. > So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.) Previous generations accepted infinitely heavier sacrifices and more dangerous duties to defend democracy. I’ll miss the tax cut I’d get from united Republican government. But there will be other elections, other chances to vote for what I regard as more sensible policies. My party will recover to counter her agenda in Congress, moderate her nominations to the courts, and defeat her bid for re-election in 2020. I look forward to supporting Republican recovery and renewal. * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch... That was in 2016. |
| |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We're going to take the "both sides bad" intellectual dishonesty The intellectual dishonesty is pretending that not calling out both sides will lead to any kind of long term solution. > But hey! Kamala would've done the same. Saying both sides are bad is not saying they're the same. They take on different forms but are both fundamentally broken and part of the same uniparty of capital interests. The blue/red parties offer an illusion of democracy, but really they just play good cop/bad cop while ultimately serving the wants of elites instead of needs/wants of the vast majority. But elections appear close, so people think they still have a democracy while they argue about which flavor of shit to install in the control booth. Installing the subjectively "less bad" flavor only guarantees the other one will soon take over in a collective race to the bottom. Dems elevated Trump from meme tier gameshow host to serious contender thanks to their pied piper strategy, and all they could manage was to get mad at wikileaks for exposing them. | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun a day ago | parent [-] | | You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with). And here we are with perfect being the enemy of the good… | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with). Maybe if you want to manufacture consent for the broken system which continues to make lives worse with each passing year instead of confront it. If you're trying to find agreement, maybe say both sides are responsible for widespread misery, and corruption/exploitable systems and perpetual settling for lesser-evils among "voters" is what keeps us on this path. And before anybody tries to blame the non-voters, abstaining from voting in a broken system is indeed a vote. | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And before anybody tries to blame the non-voters, abstaining from voting in a broken system is indeed a vote. ... Yes, I agree. Abstaining from voting is the same as voting for Trump. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent [-] | | And as my parent comment says, voting for complicit Dems is a future vote for him. Treating a corrupt system as legitimate is what perpetuates it. Only one of the three options marks it as illegitimate. Collectively admitting the problem is a prerequisite to fixing it. |
|
|
|
|
