They should have been preparing a replacement for Biden since he was sworn into office.
Now… Who really knows. There’s so much at stake for more than the presidency. If the choices are between a 78 year old felon under multiple indictments who is only out for himself, and an 81 year old who wants to better the country but is, well, 81… I’ll take the 81 year old
In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.
-Hannah Arendt, German-American philosopher and political theorist, in fuckin 1964 lmao. some things never change!
It’s a frigging figure of speech. It doesn’t literally mean both options are “evil” anytime it is used. And you’re not “choosing evil” by voting for Biden — not for the people whose lives will be ruined if Trump wins. For many you are preventing evil.
If a few more people in a few states had chosen the “lesser evil” of Hillary over Trump, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be delivering supreme evil every few months for the foreseeable future.
(I don’t need to hear about how Hillary did a bad job in the election — it doesn’t change the fact that the consequences are what they are.)
Then Congress would appoint the President. If, somehow, a Congress was also not elected, then the states would likely send delegates to do the same thing, but not all of Congress is even up for election.
IMO the disconnect lies in the fact that many don’t see Biden as the “lesser evil.” They want to vote for Biden, because they’ve been influenced to think it is the only option.
Voters want a solution to that situation, so they make assumptions to come to a conclusion that fits the narrative they tell themselves.
Some, when faced with a no-win situation, choose to not play the game. Others, convince themselves that the lesser-evil is a desirable outcome. Many, myself included, want to “change the conditions of the test.”.
There is no viable solution. All choices are valid and should be respected.
I’m going to assume, from your replies, that you don’t think this election is a no-win situation?
But others do, which is illustrated in OP’s Arendt comment. Those concerns are material, whether true, or not. Dismissing vote abstainers, or third party voters, doesn’t address those concerns. Only Biden and the DNC can do that.
because you’re fucking moron that forgets things easily!"
It’s more that the worst thing you’re willing to accept becomes the new normal.
And then something that was previously unthinkable becomes thinkable. And then if you accept that because it’s the lesser evil, it becomes the new “new normal”. Continue in a downward spiral.
Look at the state we’re in now, with Trump and Biden. That’s the result of decades of picking “the lesser evil”.
That account is by the way an extremely racist dog whistle. These accounts are designed to act as entry drugs into hardcore racist “race science” fan fiction.
If you know you know, if you don’t stay the fuck away and report any that you see
I mean hey, dragon with a passion for cooking and looks like a penchant for dressing with panache, if they’ve got the right personality I’d call that a catch!
Dragons live even longer than elves. They can’t be bother to properly learn the spelling of all the words every time a human civilization destroys itself and a new one rises with a new language.
lemmy.world
Oldest