• BillDaCatt@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Right… Because there is another real choice in this race.

    The orange con-man is even friendlier to Israel and would help to escalate this tragedy.

    I don’t like the choices either, but the one that isn’t Biden is so much worse!

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The point is “you don’t have a better choice” isn’t a great argument FOR something. The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates, not “he’s not the other guy” lumps of wet tissue paper.

      • splicerslicer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        None of this changes the fact that if you wanted a better candidate you should have campaigned them a year ago, not now.

        When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago, when is the next best time? Now.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Lmao “it’s too late now, why are you even trying?”. Your quote at the end literally contradicts yourself, by the way. The point of the quote is that yes, it should have been done then, but it’s now and now is better than later. And of course later you’ll have another handy excuse for why it’s too hard, right?

          None of this changes the fact that you’re advocating the easy answers instead of the right answer and even you know it. But just like the boomers before who only looked out for themselves and what was easiest, so too will these next generations. And round and round we go.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The Democrats need to put forth strong candidates

        It’s assumed that the incumbent will run unless they decide not to. Biden should’ve stuck to one term only, he would’ve gone down as a pretty good President, all things considered. That he didn’t is on him, the DNC isn’t going to go against a sitting President when there’s no concrete reason to do so.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          And they SHOULD. That’s why they’re weak. That’s the entire problem.

            • fishos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Not let traditions like “we don’t oppose the sitting president” override supporting who is actually best for the job. Elections should be cutroat even amongst the party. Not some dog and pony circus that we’re given where both candidates are chosen for us and we get to play “lesser of two evils” game.

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                There will still be a sizable, perhaps even majority, of members who support Biden’s choice to run again. What you’re advocating for is a civil war in the Dem party during an election year against Donald fucking Trump.

                • fishos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  No, what I’m advocating is for more than a 2 party system where multiple viable candidates are brought forth and not just the same two groups controlling it all.

                  Crazy idea, I know. Maybe we could call it a “Parliament” or something.

                  You just keep arguing “LESSER OF TWO EVILS!” like that actually means something

                  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You’re talking about something that would be great to work towards. I’m talking about why the DNC didn’t do the thing you wanted them to do.

                    What actually means something is keeping Trump out of the White House.

      • Archer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, that’s why we should have RCV. Until then though, we’re stuck with first past the post voting and not voting for Biden is basically the same as voting for Trump. This could flip enough people in battleground states to let Trump win.

        It’s stupid and she knows it but she’s doing it anyway

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          And what will be next elections reason to not change the system, fight against it at all, and just “vote for the safer pick”? Change has to happen sometime or not at all. So when, pray tell, do we start caring that we’re stuck in a shallow 2 party system and do something about it? When it’s convientant?!?

            • fishos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Our elections are already a sham. We already don’t have truly free elections in this closed two party system. So again, when do we make change? It’ll never be convientant.