• severien@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Expect a lot of discussions what will happen with Biden dying in office, and that becomes even more possible.

    And imagining Kamala as a president is a big turn off.

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some voters may see two bad choices and not seeing any decent choice won’t vote at all.

        • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s something you may think if you’re 5 y/o and going on vibes. Every decision you face not only has the consequences if you choose it, but also if you don’t.

          A pure hypothetical to demonstrate the general principle on an extreme example (not a direct comparison): you have an election with two candidates: one runs on a promise of Holocaust 2.0 and the other will twist your ankle after he wins. Would you say you can’t choose because both are bad? Obviously you would under any case want to avoid the worse outcome. Because not doing anything is risking that bad outcome, even if the alternative is bad. The upcoming election is not that extreme, but my example should have demonstrated the principle: inaction in face of greater evil is wrong.

          There is no absolute good in this world, and if you can’t choose between Kamala Harris and those horrible people you moral compass is out of whack. When you don’t vote, the choice is made for you. Whether something is good or bad has to be evaluated considering possible alternatives, you can’t just not choose and expect a miracle to happen.

        • rhacer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t vote because I believe voting is an immoral act, but for those that do vote, I think this is a significant comment. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that may be a bridge too far for some.

            • rhacer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So I should engage in an immoral act because other people might do something wrong?

              I have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives, and that is what I attempt to do any time I cast a ballot.

                • rhacer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Surprisingly, I haven’t died early. I just celebrated six decades of life last week. I guess if I pass in the next couple of years that might still be considered early.

                  I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who’s lives i have enriched over those years. I certainly am.

          • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I used to think that when I was young and ignorant. There is a real difference, and if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.

            Just say that you don’t care, don’t pretend to be on some moral high ground.

            If you don’t vote, stay out of the conversation, because this has nothing to do with you. If you want to join and share your opinion, do some research and take some action.

          • morgan423@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The debate shouldn’t be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire debate should be focused on opening up more options and the actual ability to vote for third party candidates without throwing your vote away, by implementing a different system, like ranked choice voting.

            Continuing to focus on which Sith lord will blow up the country the least if elected is a losing play. We have to do better and focus our attention elsewhere if we have any chance of getting anything reformed.

    • doyoulikemyparka@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I asked a friend this the other day and they didn’t know. In the last election Harris seemed to be set up to take over from Biden at the next election, but since then I’ve not heard anything about her or what she’s been up to as VP. What happened?

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bidens neural implant was successful so she wasn’t needed. But seriously. It’s frustrating if the DNC used any common sense they could snuff the Republicans for the next few elections after what just happened with Trump. But instead they just decided to use the opportunity to be slightly less of a bad choice than the Republicans. They have to skate that line, they cant just put in someone who would be actually liked by the people. They have to install someone who plays as far by their rules as they can get and will also keep the election close so we don’t swing to far to the left.