Drone armies, expanded overtime pay and over-the-counter birth control pills are just some of the new things Biden has ushered in as president that you might not have heard about.
I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that’s a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.
If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.
A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.
It is 100% within Biden’s power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.
You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn’t like).
If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it’s a moot point.
You’re just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.
You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it’s not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.
If you think that’s a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called “The Lesser Evil”, where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she’ll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.
Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts – he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.
It really isn’t hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?
I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that’s a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.
If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.
A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.
Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death
It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.
It is 100% within Biden’s power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.
You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn’t like).
If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it’s a moot point.
Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.
You’re just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.
You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it’s not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.
Instead of focusing on the hyperbolic fantasy of less death, try no death.
If you think that’s a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called “The Lesser Evil”, where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she’ll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.
Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts – he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.
It really isn’t hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?