Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
If the two unpopular candidates were perfectly equal then your argument might have weight, but in my book there's one that's horrible, and one that's not great, but also not horrible.
Politics never has a good candidate, it's always between two bad choices. It's just choosing the best of the two.
Well now you're catching on to why so many people don't even bother. It's almost as if these two parties want it that way so they can maintain their control. Why do you think the Democrats keep picking candidates that either lose or struggle to win against someone like Trump?
I guess in my thinking, if the act of not voting means you are okay with letting the worst candidate win, then by not voting it means I'm okay with a lot of innocent people being hurt by the horrid policies of the worse candidate. By voting for the lesser of two evils, I'm more saying "I don't want that other candidate".
You're trying to say it's their plot to give you two candidates. What if their plot is instead to convince you not to vote, so their bad candidate gets in easier because you could have helped stop it?
What are you helping to stop when both candidates are terrible? You're helping in the same way that "thoughts and prayers" helps people. You're simply participating in a rigged game and thinking that your participation is some sort of moral choice and "doing the right thing" when in reality that feeling is just self-gratification.
If you think you're helping, why does the political landscape continue to devolve and slide further to the right regardless of who wins? Why are more and more people becoming poor and homeless while a handful of companies and individuals are reaping all the rewards? That's the trajectory you're arguing to help maintain here.
Personally the farther left we go, the louder the right gets. To me, I see a losing battle that they're desperately trying to win. They may win temporarily now and again, but overwhelmingly the younger generations are more liberal. It's why we see the desperate grab for power now, they know even with the tricks it's just a matter of time.
And for your first, I stand by what I said. Your assumption is that both candidates are equal, so what's the point. Except from my point of view, one is vastly better than the alternative, so there is a point.