You can argue that. It is a stupid argument, but you can argue it.
Not really. If your focus is beyond the next 4 years, you can argue letting Democrats lose is the best strategy to stop wars on the planet down the line.
In fact if Kamala was going to loose either way (as it happened) it’s a good thing that she lost hard.
belastend@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
makyo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Anyone who makes that argument has no idea how bad things can get and how fast.
yetiftw@lemmy.world 1 year ago
but in the long term there’s always a swing back the other way
ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Right. Germany got it’s act together…
…AFTER THE DEATH CAMPS.
timewarp@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There is at least one camp right now where genocide is happening and the Democrats are supporting and paying for it.
thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
…after a couple of generations, with many years of misery.
dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 year ago
Yes?
So if the camps were happening either way, better not to vote for the guy that says “vote me and the camps will have regulations in regard to human experimentation!” and strictly go for “fuck that shit”.
I get people still being affected by the election topics, but it’s not now.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Accelerationist arguments always show that the speaker isn’t nearly as smart as they think they are.
pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 1 year ago
Because accelerationist arguments are always wrong.