As much as I know Kamala is the status quo which is not my bag either for many reasons (genocide being one), I know things can be much worse. And, unless you’re an accelerationist (doubtful from a .world-er), isn’t it better to not give ultimate power over genocide or expulsion of immigrants to this supreme egomaniac?
And shifting the balance of SCOTUS for the better compared to ending democracy to install an octogenarian fascist is practically the same thing. Both sides, amirite?
You have a flawed candidate, and one of the worst in history, people - understand what’s on the line, and stop drawing false equivalencies.
isn’t it better to not give ultimate power over genocide or expulsion of immigrants to this supreme egomaniac?
Unfortunately, you’ve got a Democrat running who is openly courting John Negroponte, Jeff Flake, and the Cheneys.
If Harris puts Liz Cheney into a cabinet position, like State or Intelligence or DHS, that’s exactly where we end up. We’ve just traded a loud borish egomaniac for a quieter and more sophisticated one.
Even if she doesn’t, there’s a murderers row of liberal-ish insiders who seem perfectly content to join shooting wars with Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, China, half a dozen African nations, Mexico… Nevermind that proxy war with Russia we’re already in.
unless you’re an accelerationist
Accelerationism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a coping mechanism. You get to pretend enshittification was your plan all along and not a disaster fully outside your control.
I get what you’re saying, and I agree, but at this juncture, there’s nothing to be done. We only get a duopoly because of our voting system. It’s shit, we should change it.
We only get a duopoly because of our voting system.
We don’t have a duopoly. We have a pair of regional monopolies. And it’s not the voting system that gives us candidates like Eric Adams or Mike Johnson or Joe Manchin. These are the consequence of a fully captured election system.
![There is no more quiet part anymore [Feb 2024, referring to Obama]](https://lemmy.kya.moe/imgproxy?src=lemmy.ml%2fpictrs/image/82a2a388-5525-4ecf-913f-e93dfe7047a7.jpeg){kind=link}
As much as I know Kamala is the status quo which is not my bag either for many reasons (genocide being one), I know things can be much worse. And, unless you’re an accelerationist (doubtful from a .world-er), isn’t it better to not give ultimate power over genocide or expulsion of immigrants to this supreme egomaniac?
And shifting the balance of SCOTUS for the better compared to ending democracy to install an octogenarian fascist is practically the same thing. Both sides, amirite?
You have a flawed candidate, and one of the worst in history, people - understand what’s on the line, and stop drawing false equivalencies.
Unfortunately, you’ve got a Democrat running who is openly courting John Negroponte, Jeff Flake, and the Cheneys.
If Harris puts Liz Cheney into a cabinet position, like State or Intelligence or DHS, that’s exactly where we end up. We’ve just traded a loud borish egomaniac for a quieter and more sophisticated one.
Even if she doesn’t, there’s a murderers row of liberal-ish insiders who seem perfectly content to join shooting wars with Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, China, half a dozen African nations, Mexico… Nevermind that proxy war with Russia we’re already in.
Accelerationism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a coping mechanism. You get to pretend enshittification was your plan all along and not a disaster fully outside your control.
It’s the 😂 emoji of political thought.
I get what you’re saying, and I agree, but at this juncture, there’s nothing to be done. We only get a duopoly because of our voting system. It’s shit, we should change it.
What’s your political alignment, friend?
We don’t have a duopoly. We have a pair of regional monopolies. And it’s not the voting system that gives us candidates like Eric Adams or Mike Johnson or Joe Manchin. These are the consequence of a fully captured election system.