• Tinidril@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is.

    That’s a useless point to make. Of course is shouldn’t matter. The important point is, it did matter. The disconnect between these two points ought to make you question your assumptions about how to win elections. Clinging desperately to a model that has failed over and over and over again is insanity.

    “This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”

    This is rhetorically a dumb way to argue. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it’s just to easy to point out that not voting for fascism would also have to be considered a vote against fascism. It’s just a dumb way to argue and just further antagonizes the person you are supposedly trying to convince. You don’t get votes by attacking voters.

    Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe?

    A more populist candidate would have more chances. That does generally mean further left or right, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either. I want a leftist candidate but, honestly, an anti-corruption centrist might have as much of a chance. Big money billionaires buying politicians is extremely unpopular across the spectrum. Good luck getting a Democratic centrist to run on that though.

    • schema@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yeah. I’m done talking to you. The way you argue shows that you rather be calling people names than actually make arguments. If you can’t be respectful in a discussion, I’m not gonna waste my time with you.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Your tantrum might be more convincing had I actually called you or anyone else a name. As for tone, read your own comments.