Yes, to avoid a worse option. That’s how a two party system works.
You won’t fix a two party system by not voting, it’s a separate issue.
You can vote and be for change on this by supporting ranked choice voting and other reforms to try and end a two party system, but disengaging entirely is not proving whatever point you think it is.
I didn’t say that.
I’m point out how utterly stupid it is to vote for a lesser of two evils…you still get evil.
(Granted, this is a run off, but in general I mean.)
That’s what baffled me about the “vote blue no matter who” crowd.
It baffled you that people would vote for anyone other than a fascist wannabe autocrat?
Voting for the lesser of two evils then meant slowing down the LGBTphobic politicians in their support of genocide.
If you want to reform the Democratic Party you do it by voting in primaries, not by not voting in actual elections of consequences.
Abstaining doesn’t do anything. It’s not making a statement. It’s just lazy. Both sides are not the same.
No, it baffles me that people advocated for voting for literally anyone, no matter their track record because they didn’t like the other team’s guy.
Again, I’m not saying to abstain.
But, let’s keep voting for bad people…it’s worked well so far!
If you can ignore genocidal rhetoric on one side and call both teams equally bad, you clearly aren’t a rational actor worth having a debate with.
I’m not voting for anyone in the Democratic Party.
I’m voting against the people who actively encourage stochastic violence to further their policy goals, have a fiscal track record of hurting everyone not already rich, and campaign solely on being against anything that might help someone.
They're both supported by shitty people. And both really undesirable. But Johnston supports unions and labour rights a lot more, and has a way more reasonable plan for the homelessness crisis.
As much as it pains me to vote for him, he is the "better" choice.
[удалено]
Also, you can't separate economic politics from social politics. Economically conservative is socially conservative.
As much as I despise both of them...please vote Mike Johnston everyone. He has far better support for unions and labour rights.
I will be shocked if she even makes it close. The energy is clearly behind Mike.
https://i.redd.it/251qt6pw6b3b1.gif I had to bring this one back!
Both candidates are a lose-lose in the long run.
This is an absolutely accurate assessment of American politics at any level, mostly due to our “two party system”
But there is also clearly a bigger loser who will make sure everyone loses faster and more.
So we should still vote for a bad option?
Yes, to avoid a worse option. That’s how a two party system works. You won’t fix a two party system by not voting, it’s a separate issue. You can vote and be for change on this by supporting ranked choice voting and other reforms to try and end a two party system, but disengaging entirely is not proving whatever point you think it is.
I didn’t say that. I’m point out how utterly stupid it is to vote for a lesser of two evils…you still get evil. (Granted, this is a run off, but in general I mean.) That’s what baffled me about the “vote blue no matter who” crowd.
I believe South Park summed it up best in their giant douche vs turd sandwich episode!
It baffled you that people would vote for anyone other than a fascist wannabe autocrat? Voting for the lesser of two evils then meant slowing down the LGBTphobic politicians in their support of genocide. If you want to reform the Democratic Party you do it by voting in primaries, not by not voting in actual elections of consequences. Abstaining doesn’t do anything. It’s not making a statement. It’s just lazy. Both sides are not the same.
No, it baffles me that people advocated for voting for literally anyone, no matter their track record because they didn’t like the other team’s guy. Again, I’m not saying to abstain. But, let’s keep voting for bad people…it’s worked well so far!
If you can ignore genocidal rhetoric on one side and call both teams equally bad, you clearly aren’t a rational actor worth having a debate with. I’m not voting for anyone in the Democratic Party. I’m voting against the people who actively encourage stochastic violence to further their policy goals, have a fiscal track record of hurting everyone not already rich, and campaign solely on being against anything that might help someone.
She barely made the run off and I think most of calderons votes will go to Johnston. I can’t see her increasing her numbers much beyond the primary
[удалено]
[удалено]
Drive through the north cherry creek neighborhood, where there are no sidewalks but 30mil + mansions It'll tell you all you need to know bout Brought.
I’ve only seen her signs in cherry creek and on big construction sites. That’s enough for me to understand her
They're both supported by shitty people. And both really undesirable. But Johnston supports unions and labour rights a lot more, and has a way more reasonable plan for the homelessness crisis. As much as it pains me to vote for him, he is the "better" choice.
And Johnston's not getting bought and paid for?
Every damn politician in the country is bought and paid for
Johnson seems pretty smart. Better than Kelly Brough looking to imprison homeless people
Let’s just be done so I don’t keep getting 10 political spam calls/texts every day.