• BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality. The person that has the most support has the most power to intact change. Sometimes that means you have to crawl through shit to get there.

    I’ll take any bigot, racist, or whatever vote if that means the better candidate wins in November, because that alternative is the bigot, racist, racist. Better to fluff the controversial voters and hopefully win than lose an election because of a speech. And if she doesn’t win, then it doesn’t matter what she said anyway.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality.

      As though you consider any capitulation to fascism unfortunate.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Jesus christ.

      If one candidate said they’d kill the jews, but the other said they’d just send them to camps (to appease that popular fascist voter), liberals would end up voting to send the jews to concentration camps.

      This is how liberals end up siding with fascism

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        That might be true if anything even remotely close to that happened, but that is a completely different situation that what this conversation is about.

        One side says no trans rights, and one side didn’t bring it up in their speech, event though a couple of others did, which is far different from being anti trans.