chat

Hey, I'm sorry, but I need to hammer this in, because brainworms burrow deep and I'd like to make sure you understand yours. The issue isn't simply that you implied something you didn't mean to imply, that's true so far as it goes, but the more important part is what you implied. That's the problem. If you take away from this experience "I need to write more carefully on the internet so people don't read anything into what I've written" that's an ok lesson, but it isn't the one I'm hopeful you'll learn. My hope is that you'll come away with something more like "wow, I seem to have some internal feeling that men are morally stronger than women, I wonder where that came from and how I can go about unlearning this feeling."

I want you to deprogram the underlying misogyny, not just learn to disguise it better, you know? Still, thanks for admitting fault, that's hard to do on the internet.

Yeah and trump is still better than electing a dog with rabies. If your baseline is "here's a worse candidate" then you can clap for anything. It's also completely debateable wether he'll be worse. You are handwaving away several things as being insignificant, that aren't.

and yet it's still better then what Trump wants to do.

They deported more people.

Yes, they oversaw the destruction of Roe V Wade, and yet it's still nothing compared to the anti-lgbtq, anti-women laws that trump will pass once elected

Bills that will pass anyway because the dems don't give a shit about any of it. At least with Trump people like you went out to fight against it.

Yes, they sent billions abroad for war and you'll never guess what Trump sent just as much

Do you think this is an argument for the dems? Yes they are just as bad, glad we agree.
Trump also oversaw the agreement to finally pull out of Afghanistan. The Biden regime decided the best way to help afghanis were to freeze all foreign assets. I'm sure the people being ruled over by taleban are grateful they also get to starve and their state has no money to finance renovations.

to my knowledge, there wasn't any major deregulation from the dems, much unlike what Trump wants to do

Apart from the tariffs on cheap EVs and solar cells and the union busting and the decreased requirements for freight trains which have led to seceral catastrophies? There's definitely way more, I just can't be arsed to look them up for a person I know will come with some dumbshit response.

so, choose your poison, and be realistic

The realistic option is to not normalize genocide. Voting for someone who is actively commiting a genocide will make things far worse than electing a guy who is like all the others, just a bit more obvious about it. The realistic option is to not give legitimacy to rulers who do these things. The realistic option is not to do something that has only yielded terrible results. Your line of argument has been trotted out since Nixon for gods sakes, and even then it was old!

"That's the real issue this time," he said."Beating Nixon. It's hard to even guess how much damage those bastards will do if they get in for another four years."
The argument was familiar, I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame, but "regrettably necessary" holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?
Now with another one of these big bogus showdowns looming down on us, I can already pick up the stench of another bummer. I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing this year is Beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing, as I recall, twelve years ago in 1960 – and as far as I can tell, we've gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.*

• Hunter S. Thompson Fear And Loathing: On The Campaign Trail '72

I'm happy where my country stands at, thanks.

There it is. "I don't care about anyone else, I like how my life is and want the status quo". Do direct action and organise to help OTHERS, if your country is a super paradise then do direct action to pressure your government into condemning genocide. Sadly I think you won't ever resort to actually doing something to help.

It's not worth engaging, really. You clearly know all this and actually just don't give a fuck.

I'm happy where my country stands at, thanks.

The country is currently, according to you, on the tipping edge of something cataclysmic and you're happy with that? Lmao

Right, so let's elect the guy who will do imminent and immediate harm, and a lot more of it, because that's better obviously

As opposed to the lady who will do imminent and immediate harm, but where dorks like you go outside and fight against it?

I am a realist. The genocide, at least for now, won't stop, but we have the power to not make it worse. What do you chose?

You've been told quite a few times what people choose. A realist would accept the reality of the situation. A realist also wouldn't have this idealistic dogmatic adherence to decades old arguments about "aw shucks just this one time we need to do it, because the other guy is actually way worse and way different"
In your case the realistic option would be to acknowledge that your candidate has a better chance of winning the election if she stops supporting a genocide, and instead of arguing with leftists online you put your energy towards pushing your candidate to make those concessions. What do you choose?