Your perspective is so fundamentally flawed you had to change what the pic said to fit your narrative.
We simply wouldn’t be anywhere close to the apocalyptic speed run into fascism and genocide on US soil under Kamala.
You’re fucking delusional if you’re still “both sides”-ing this late in the game.
Too bad millions of vulnerable minorities and women have to suffer now because you couldn’t see the painfully obvious differences. The blood is partially on your hands now.
It’s a lost cause trying to debate with any of the the socialist/communist/aurhoritarian/tankie/whathaveyous.
They will just run you in circles defending points you never made. all to distract everyone from the fact that they don’t have one of their own to make.
Its that they’re severely gullible and often uneducated morons who act more like Republicans than progressives.
Their entire political perspective is in spite of establishment Dems. They absolutely refuse to see reality for what it is nor understand that to win, they need to act strategically.
Also a poor analogy. You’d never get even close to controlling a bug infestation with a boot. If you were doing your best at stomping bugs all day every day, you’d still never get ahead of them. Insecticide, on the other hand, that’s actually got a good chance of killing every last bug in the place.
We’re already three layers deep in taking an extraordinarily complicated subject and boiling it down into simple political cartoons and hypothetical modifications to that cartoon.
You’re saying that the options are between “horrible” and “so apparently equally horrible as to make no apparent difference to the voting public.”
And I’m saying that even between the two options that you’re suggesting, there is a meaningful, even an important difference, and that not voting is still resulting in a worse outcome than voting for what seems to be an undesirable option.
Also, the subject isn’t even as simple as all that. In the real world, anyone capable of thinking ought to have been easily capable of seeing the material difference between the available options. It just turns out that “capable of thinking” is in catastrophically short supply in the real world.
You’re saying that the options are between “horrible” and “so apparently equally horrible as to make no apparent difference to the voting public.”
Nope.
Like you agreed with me: boots aren’t as good as killing insects as insecticide.
But they still kill insects.
My point was instead of trying to get the insects to vote for something that will kill less of them, insecticide would have been easily beaten by an option like “not killing any insects”, but obviously an option like “sugar water” would have done even better.
Ask more questions, make less assumptions.
You’ll actually learn stuff that way
Don’t assume you understand if something doesn’t make logical sense to you. Ask if you’re missing something.
My point was instead of trying to get the insects to vote for something that will kill less of them, insecticide would have been easily beaten by an option like “not killing any insects”, but obviously an option like “sugar water” would have done even better
And if wishes were horses everyone would ride, but we don’t live in that world. We try to make the best decisions we can, given the options available. It’s 2024, Sugar Water isn’t on the table, and we can impact the outcome of the election by choosing between Boot and Insecticide. One of those is in fact a better outcome for a bunch of bugs that don’t want to get eradicated. Refusing to play is still impacting the outcome of the election. Also, it really was not as bad as Insecticide vs. Boot. You simply cannot look around and claim in good faith that what we’re seeing in the streets is about the same, only in worse degree, than what would have happened if Kamala or even Biden for that matter, had been elected.
By the time it’s general election time, it’s too late to wish that Sugar Water were on the ballot. Engage early. Engage in lower level elections. Get Sugar Water elected to state level representation. Vote in primaries. But if all of that process has already taken place, and we still don’t choose the least bad option, then we are objectively helping the worst option to win.
Idiots still confused why “boot” generated such poor enthusiasm since it was the only other option…
Still dedicate ridiculous amounts of time arguing against any actual pro-insect candidate.
Your perspective is so fundamentally flawed you had to change what the pic said to fit your narrative.
We simply wouldn’t be anywhere close to the apocalyptic speed run into fascism and genocide on US soil under Kamala.
You’re fucking delusional if you’re still “both sides”-ing this late in the game.
Too bad millions of vulnerable minorities and women have to suffer now because you couldn’t see the painfully obvious differences. The blood is partially on your hands now.
It’s a lost cause trying to debate with any of the the socialist/communist/aurhoritarian/tankie/whathaveyous.
They will just run you in circles defending points you never made. all to distract everyone from the fact that they don’t have one of their own to make.
Its not that they’re communist or socialist.
Its that they’re severely gullible and often uneducated morons who act more like Republicans than progressives.
Their entire political perspective is in spite of establishment Dems. They absolutely refuse to see reality for what it is nor understand that to win, they need to act strategically.
Right? Wait a sec… you might be on to something-
Hating someone politically because of the party they represent… who else do we know that does that?
Republicans… like I said.
Also a poor analogy. You’d never get even close to controlling a bug infestation with a boot. If you were doing your best at stomping bugs all day every day, you’d still never get ahead of them. Insecticide, on the other hand, that’s actually got a good chance of killing every last bug in the place.
I don’t think you understand any of this…
I really do, actually.
We’re already three layers deep in taking an extraordinarily complicated subject and boiling it down into simple political cartoons and hypothetical modifications to that cartoon.
You’re saying that the options are between “horrible” and “so apparently equally horrible as to make no apparent difference to the voting public.”
And I’m saying that even between the two options that you’re suggesting, there is a meaningful, even an important difference, and that not voting is still resulting in a worse outcome than voting for what seems to be an undesirable option.
Also, the subject isn’t even as simple as all that. In the real world, anyone capable of thinking ought to have been easily capable of seeing the material difference between the available options. It just turns out that “capable of thinking” is in catastrophically short supply in the real world.
Nope.
Like you agreed with me: boots aren’t as good as killing insects as insecticide.
But they still kill insects.
My point was instead of trying to get the insects to vote for something that will kill less of them, insecticide would have been easily beaten by an option like “not killing any insects”, but obviously an option like “sugar water” would have done even better.
Ask more questions, make less assumptions.
You’ll actually learn stuff that way
Don’t assume you understand if something doesn’t make logical sense to you. Ask if you’re missing something.
Just don’t ask me, I won’t see it
And if wishes were horses everyone would ride, but we don’t live in that world. We try to make the best decisions we can, given the options available. It’s 2024, Sugar Water isn’t on the table, and we can impact the outcome of the election by choosing between Boot and Insecticide. One of those is in fact a better outcome for a bunch of bugs that don’t want to get eradicated. Refusing to play is still impacting the outcome of the election. Also, it really was not as bad as Insecticide vs. Boot. You simply cannot look around and claim in good faith that what we’re seeing in the streets is about the same, only in worse degree, than what would have happened if Kamala or even Biden for that matter, had been elected.
By the time it’s general election time, it’s too late to wish that Sugar Water were on the ballot. Engage early. Engage in lower level elections. Get Sugar Water elected to state level representation. Vote in primaries. But if all of that process has already taken place, and we still don’t choose the least bad option, then we are objectively helping the worst option to win.