osarusan

It's literally following the law.

This certainly tracks with me. I was familiar with the pro-Trump crowd on Facebook and Reddit for many years, but I never understood why liberals just failed to get the vote out until I came to lemmy/kbin. The sheer amount of people on the fediverse who are loudly choose to vote against their own interests due to a lack of understanding about how US politics work is a tragedy. It seems the right's war on civic education has reached its tipping point, and they no longer need to rely on policy or numbers; they just need to rely on the ignorance of those who might have voted against them. We seem doomed for a second Trump presidency because nobody wants to take responsibility for the future.

This says more about the character of the voter than it does about the Democratic Party's poor choice in candidates.

If you choose to not fight fascism because the alternative isn't perfection, you've made a very foolish choice.

So then we really don’t have a democracy

We have a kind of democracy

since we’re being forced to only vote for Trump or Biden, instead of other candidates we might align with better?

You're not forced to vote for one of them. But they are the only two for whom a vote matters.

You are free to not vote. You are free to vote for a third party. You are free to vote for a joke candidate. But if you care at all about the outcome of the election, there is absolutely a correct person to vote for. Until we elect a congress that will pass comprehensive voting reform laws, it doesn't matter who you align with; it only matters which of the "big two" you prefer to win.

The game we play has specific rules. If you care about the future, you should play by them. The hard work of changing the system into something better takes place in between elections, not during election years.

There are plenty of people you can vote for, but there are only two people who might win. Vote intelligently. Vote like the future depends on it.

I don’t think that means are worth the end

But the scenario you outline above is literally the opposite of that.

You said you'd choose to force feed everyone horse shit instead of food if it brought about the end you desired.

You're saying the completely opposite thing now.

I think maybe we do want the same thing, but we're disconnecting at some level of this conversation and we're not going to get anywhere unless we get on the same page.

I didn't lose the metaphor. You just took it for a turn I didn't expect.

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a horrible person, but here you are straight up saying, in your own words, that you'd rather eat horse shit than lima beans, and you'd rather force your children, your loved ones, and your neighbors to eat horse shit than lima beans too.

I was expecting that you'd have some amount of empathy and the sense to eat actually food over something that could make you extremely sick or kill you. But you don't. So as I said above, I don't think we can communicate on any meaningful level. You are completely irrational and lacking in empathy, and we don't value the same things.

Yeah, talk about a loaded, dishonest question. When you're willing to poison the well that much, you can come to any conclusion you like.

Yikes. That's some bizarre logic. You'd actually choose to eat horse shit because maybe next time you won't have to eat horse shit, when you could just not eat horse shit now.

I don't think we can communicate on any meaningful level when you're this fundamentally irrational.

I just pointed out how you're unable to understand an analogy. You don't need to provide more proof of that.

I resent being placed in a position where my options are “genocide” and “more genocide”

So do we all. But that doesn't change the facts of the scenario.

being scolded by people who are happy with it.

And now you're being dishonest.