The problem is that in US politics you only have two choices and it's all or nothing. It's not a choice between Ron Paul, Trump or Harris. It's just Trump or Harris.
A vote for Paul is effectively a vote for Harris and you don't have to be a "Trumptard" to have a problem with that.
Exactly. Is it really a principled stance if sticking to it gives the exact opposite result of what it means to accomplish? Intent doesn't matter. Only results do.
The two-party US system is not normally a problem of choosing between two candidates, because the multiple choice part happens in the primary.
In the general election you're reaffirming your support for your party's candidate as you've already made your choice. It's only the non-committed people mostly in the center who chose to only select from two candidates that have only two choices.
Of course this time the Democrat party failed to use a primary of many candidates to select their nominee.
There's a problem with the lesser evil argument, which is that if you allow one party to morally blackmail you into voting for them simply because they're not quite as terrible as the other party, they'll be able to take your vote for granted. You completely abdicate any leverage you otherwise had, because the party you're closer to no longer has to win your vote.
True, but on the other hand, in a 2 party system each party has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They cannot satisfy every group. They don't have to appeal to everyone but they also can't.
That's the advantage of a multi party parliamentary system. There you can actually have parties that appeal to most everyone. That's the theory at least. Europe shows us that they still manage to pervert that system in a multitude of ways.
I don't agree, even though some of those points are correct. Some are completely false. We're all disappointed about Hillary, but Trump got the Durham process started. Maybe the other prosecutors were right - no jury will convict her.
Didn't build the wall.
He started the wall despite no funding from Congress and another impeachment threat.
Didn't drain the swamp.
He uncovered it and everyone realized the swamp is bigger than any one administration can deal with.
Pushed Operation Warp Speed. Pardoned rappers and Israeli spies.
The only reason some of us voted for Trump in 2016 was Hillary was worse. Same with Romney before him and lord was McCain only just barely better (probably wasn't in reality).
Our "winner takes all system" is really fucking awful in that regard, and it becomes more awful by the year as the division of Left/Right stops being gentlemanly disagreement about details and instead an entire separate reality.
At the end of the day though, we have to make the best decision for the best possible outcome in reality. Not in some ideal utopian world we don't live in where a "principled stance" helps get children raped and mutilated.
The contract for Operation Warp Speed was absolutely fine. I have good friends that work in biotech, and I was happy to see the opportunity for them to see what they could do without onerous amounts of government red tape.
What actually happened in the name of "Operation Warp Speed" had no resemblance to what was on the contract, and it's hardly Trump's fault that every single institution and regulatory agency involved basically lied to everybody; most of which happened after he was out of office already.
The problem is that in US politics you only have two choices and it's all or nothing. It's not a choice between Ron Paul, Trump or Harris. It's just Trump or Harris.
A vote for Paul is effectively a vote for Harris and you don't have to be a "Trumptard" to have a problem with that.
Exactly. Is it really a principled stance if sticking to it gives the exact opposite result of what it means to accomplish? Intent doesn't matter. Only results do.
This line works for lefties too:
"A vote for RFK Jr. is effectively a vote for Trump and you don't have to be a 'Kamalatard' to have a problem with that"
Well, it's true. Just don't tell them ;)
It not only works for lefties, but is actually true. This isn't Europe. We vote for the candidate here, not the party.
The two-party US system is not normally a problem of choosing between two candidates, because the multiple choice part happens in the primary.
In the general election you're reaffirming your support for your party's candidate as you've already made your choice. It's only the non-committed people mostly in the center who chose to only select from two candidates that have only two choices.
Of course this time the Democrat party failed to use a primary of many candidates to select their nominee.
There's a problem with the lesser evil argument, which is that if you allow one party to morally blackmail you into voting for them simply because they're not quite as terrible as the other party, they'll be able to take your vote for granted. You completely abdicate any leverage you otherwise had, because the party you're closer to no longer has to win your vote.
True, but on the other hand, in a 2 party system each party has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They cannot satisfy every group. They don't have to appeal to everyone but they also can't.
That's the advantage of a multi party parliamentary system. There you can actually have parties that appeal to most everyone. That's the theory at least. Europe shows us that they still manage to pervert that system in a multitude of ways.
I don't agree, even though some of those points are correct. Some are completely false. We're all disappointed about Hillary, but Trump got the Durham process started. Maybe the other prosecutors were right - no jury will convict her.
He started the wall despite no funding from Congress and another impeachment threat.
He uncovered it and everyone realized the swamp is bigger than any one administration can deal with.
Neither of these were in the 2016 platform.
The only reason some of us voted for Trump in 2016 was Hillary was worse. Same with Romney before him and lord was McCain only just barely better (probably wasn't in reality).
Our "winner takes all system" is really fucking awful in that regard, and it becomes more awful by the year as the division of Left/Right stops being gentlemanly disagreement about details and instead an entire separate reality.
At the end of the day though, we have to make the best decision for the best possible outcome in reality. Not in some ideal utopian world we don't live in where a "principled stance" helps get children raped and mutilated.
The contract for Operation Warp Speed was absolutely fine. I have good friends that work in biotech, and I was happy to see the opportunity for them to see what they could do without onerous amounts of government red tape.
What actually happened in the name of "Operation Warp Speed" had no resemblance to what was on the contract, and it's hardly Trump's fault that every single institution and regulatory agency involved basically lied to everybody; most of which happened after he was out of office already.