• TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 days ago

    Why is it always ‘voters need to lower their standards’, and never ‘candidates need to be decent human beings’?

      • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        Why do you only frame the issue in terms of the voters’ responsibilities, and never in terms of the candidate’s responsibilities?

        Why aren’t the politicians the ones who need to make hard choices? Why can’t they get wedged on the issues for once?

        • throbbing_banjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 days ago

          Because that’s not the reality or the America that we live in. Every time a truly leftist candidate tries to run, they get slapped down by the majority of the DNC’s voting base.

          This is a center-right, Pro-Capitalist country with a center-right, pro-capitalist population. You don’t have to like it, I certainly don’t, but that’s the reality.

          Without ranked choice voting, there is no way in hell an actual leftist will ever appear anywhere on a presidential ballot.

          So hold your nose, put on your big boy pants, and vote for the lesser of two evils with the rest of us, because if you don’t the fucking Nazis will win again.

        • teolan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          Because voting has very limited choice and a winner takes all mechanism. Ob-fucking-viously the candidates should be better, but not voting won’t make that change. Trump elected will just make this worse.

          Voting is harm reduction.

          If you want to make things better and promote your own idealised society, get involved, donate to causes you consider to be up to your standards. But even then getting involved and convincing future candidates will be much harder if Trump is elected than if it’s Harris.

        • ski11erboi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          You’re not wrong. It all sucks. But this is the reality we live in. Life is about choosing the best choices out of the options given to us and very rarely are any of those choices exactly what we want.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because having a tantrum because reality does not conform to your sense of fairness not only accomplishes fuck-all, but actively makes things worse.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      instead of whining about voting for somebody you don’t absolutely love all aspects of, why don’t you use your time advocating to change the voting system so that you can vote for somebody else meaningfully.

    • Kalkaline @leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Who is the best alternative to Harris right now? Do I think she’s perfect? No. Do I think she’s the best alternative to Trump? Yes. We don’t have a super progressive candidate that stands a chance of winning in this race, we picked Biden in the primary, he stepped back and now we have Harris. The system sucks, but that’s what we have until voters put candidates in place to change the system.

      • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        That’s not the question.

        The question should be what choice does Harris have, except to stop Israel?

        If (as I strongly agree) trump is the worst human on the planet who will cause irreparable damage to :gestures wildly: fucking everything, then why doesn’t his opponent have the responsibility to do whatever the hell it takes, within the law to keep him out of power?

        Especially as in this instance his opponent is currently sworn to be responsible for the ongoing welfare of the nation.

        Imagine being so fucking intent on enabling genocide half a planet away that you’d rather let your own country fall into the hands of Camacho Harkonnen rather than attract progressive voters.

        • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’m under the impression there are more votes to lose by not appearing to stick with Israel than there are votes to lose by not attempting to intervene. At least, that’s what the party appears to have assessed.

          • ski11erboi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Exactly this. If she turns on Isreal she will lose the election. I think it’s realistic to think that she will have more criticisms on Isreal after she is elected. She’s not a Zionist like Biden.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Because voters choose their own behavior but not the candidates’ positions.

      This really can’t be the first time you’ve heard of changing the things you can and accepting things you can’t change.

      • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Also, voters can absolutely change a candidate’s position. The fact that people want us to vote for Harris, and not Biden, is proof of that.

    • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because Liberals have always been spineless and will continue to be. There is a parasocial worshiping dynamic how they interact with people in power. Harris just praised a Dick Cheney endorsement. There is no red line for them.