You're viewing a single thread.
Pretty sure the common denominator is “owning the libs.”
It’s not just liberals that are voting against their opposition more than they are voting for the political candidates they vote for; the other side is largely doing the same. That’s why American democracy is failing: we’re so disillusioned with our own parties that we’ve been reduced to voting for them just to keep the opposition from power. Hence, no matter how we vote, we’re dissatisfied, but we tell ourselves pretty stories to make it all right. The only real winners are corporations, which have all of these clowns in their pockets.
I've been saying it for years and every time I'm told "but if you don't vote the lesser evil the greater evil wins!"
Well, as predicted, if you do vote the lesser evil the bar is lowered year after year until both are significantly more evil than before. Standards must be enforced. We need to demand candidates that are better than last year's, not just better than the opposition.
I agree, but I honestly don’t know what the solution is. Beyond blind revolution, which is inherently chaotic and difficult to predict, I don’t see a solution. The U.S. seems doomed to spiral in the same way we’ve seen other nations do so for the foreseeable future. It all depends on how this current administration plays out and how people react to it in the future. Americans are so uneducated and gullible these days that I can’t predict how they’ll behave (and I’m an American).
Are you making the assertion that each successive candidate gets more evil? Do you think Bill Clinton was a more moral person than Barak Obama?
Not every candidate, but a general trend of "lesser evil" candidates. Obama wasn't a lesser evil candidate, he was a genuinely good one.
If the lesser evil were consistently voted in year over year, the evilness would slowly decline.
The problem is that doesn't happen. The lesser evil is often not selected, that's the part that shifts the scale.
If all a candidate has to do to get elected is be less evil than the other, then there's no incentive to be good; instead candidates are free to be as evil as they want up to the limit of the opposition. If a candidate had to be less evil than the person they're succeeding, sure, we'd get less evil over time. But that's not the case, they're compared to their opponents not their predecessors. Every time we elect someone shitty we show them they don't have to be any better than that to get elected.
This is basically what I keep telling people.
The lesser evil sucks, its still evil, but there is zero path to good, by ever supporting the evil evil.
Like, at least with the lesser evil, you are moving in the right direction to dig yourself out.