Anonymous _orangutan 1d

Common sense afflicts many of us

2

Anonymous #1 1d

common sense means settling for nothing?

0

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

When nothing is better than objectively greater suffering, of course. Does a difference of outcomes not matter because they’re both bad?

3

Anonymous #1 1d

things are going to continue deteriorating regardless and Democrats cannot provide an alternative, not because they’re unwilling, but because they’re lobbied not to and this economic system prevents it

0

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

Yeah I know things are going to keep deteriorating but like it or not democrats are AN alternative, they suck less. Since voting can’t pull them towards actual leftism then abstaining can’t either and we know the math and laws don’t work for third parties to be realistic. Given those constraints it only makes sense to look for change elsewhere and look for harm reduction in voting.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

i mean this is an impasse because this highlights the obvious limits of electoralism and the need for alternative power structures. even still, at the local level third parties are viable, especially in states like mine where Democrats do not run because of the Republican monopoly

0

Anonymous #3 1d

^

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

I don’t think this is an impasse dude, I think it is you running up against the uselessness of voting 3rd party or abstaining in national elections. I know it sucks and I hate doing it too, but for things like the presidential vote it matters to aim for harm reduction. Because we both see and acknowledge the limits of electorialism, that still doesn’t change the situation. Voting can’t change that anyway

2

Anonymous #3 1d

Yeah lemme just throw my vote in the fucking trash dude

1

Anonymous #4 1d

You know not all republicans are the same right? Thats the same as me saying that my little brothers teacher is a democrat and I hope he gets fired this year

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Oh I hope he gets ousted because he supports legislation that would actively fuck over the Chesapeake Bay which he is SUPPOSED to care about

1

Anonymous #3 1d

This isn’t just because he’s a Republican it’s because he’s a traitor to our profession

1

Anonymous #4 1d

Really that’s more of a symptom of having to tow the party line of the astonishingly anti-environmental Republican Party. I think he would prefer to be a conservationist given that used to be his job, but he can’t as a Republican.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

I mean, not really. Controlled opposition barely counts as a real party, we only have two of those.

4

Anonymous #3 1d

The Republican Party is a far right, fascist party. All Republicans are fascists because that’s what that word means. So no, those aren’t the same.

1