These are the same folks that say the civil war was fought for “states rights”.

They have no problem with ignoring details.

Holy shit I just felt like I lived his life vicariously with that comment.

Trump could open the doors of hell and it would still be no excuse for having voted for evil.

Do you view “evil” as a binary value or a numerical value that can be counted?

Shit, I’m millennial software developer who self hosts software as a hobby and I feel tech literacy decay.

I don’t understand how Microsoft office handles it’s saves, so I don’t want to save shit in the cloud. I don’t want an app for my toaster. I don’t understand how cool things like YouTube revanced and other “app mods” work, and I can barely grasp what “debrid” streams are. A zoomer manages the discord server we started years and years ago, because none of the millennials know how to work the bots. I self host one of the bots, but I don’t know shit about using it lmao.

“They’re hurting the wrong people!!”

Does emphasizing “votes only matter in swing states” influence future votes?

You’ve literally recycled bullet points from multiple posts while not acknowledging a single thing I’ve said, lol.

Your life experience dictates that both candidates were the same. I’ve understood that about you, and I know that that’s why you don’t believe in a “lesser evil”, because to you they’re genuinely the same evil. Your life doesn’t change much no matter which was elected, so you feel free to vote your conscience. Does that sound about right?

Are you talking to me, trying to understand me, or are you talking to a caricature you’ve put up in your head? What makes you think I’m mad?

I like how none of this giant wall of text contests that you’re talking about votes from an insulated place of privilege. You’ll also notice that I never tried to influence who you vote for, I simply asked about why you voted that way. I let you explain why you would or would not be losing less if Kamala had won. (I will say thought, If you feel penned in when asked to explain your thoughts, it might be a sign they require more consideration.)

I don’t give a shit how you vote, I just wanted to see the thought process behind folks who obstinately refuse to acknowledge that things are on a continuum, instead viewing things on a binary level. I want to talk to someone that believes so hard they they were willing to sacrifice, not someone to whom a vote is inconsequential no matter what.

You know how in flatland, the 1d dot cannot be blamed for not knowing there exists higher dimensions?

To your life experience, the candidates were genuinely are the same. That is both enviable and pitiful.

Cheers, have a good day.

My life is going to go on much the same no matter who is in office.

Ah, now you’re saying the quiet part out loud - you cast your vote from an ivory tower, and that privilege allows you to justify not voting by chasing an esoteric ideal while facing no real consequences.

Must be nice! If you have nothing at stake, there’s very little reason to listen to your suggestions about voting. You have no skin in the game - you’re the entitled rich kid protestor who, at the end of the day, goes back to a life they don’t have to worry about.

I find it very interesting how conceptualizing binary states vs continuous ranges play into justifying not voting for the lesser evil.

By definition, a request to acknowledge the lesser evil means that the audience is able to understand “evil” on a continuous range.

Yet all of the justifications I see against voting for the lesser evil center on viewing the world through an absolute, binary lens. “I lose either way.” “Genocide is genocide, nevermind that there’s more of it, protestors are being silenced, the ones doing the genocide call Trump’s administration a ‘dream team’, we now have a genocide against trans citizens as well”, etc.

Do you think you’d lose less had Kamala won? Why or why not?

I never said he wasn’t a valid target though. I’m asking what you think what a reasonable time frame a sitting president is expected to be given to fulfill a campaign promise of lowering the nationwide price of a commodity, and if that’s based on precedent.

Holy shit I didn’t see that on the horizon. That’ll be great…

Jokes about the eggs made of gold etc etc

These are all great reasons why egg prices are high, and will continue to be high.

All I’m asking for is precedent for a president to impact nationwide prices in 2 months time. What do you think is a reasonable window after which to assess a presidents impact on pricing of a national commodity?

Subsidize egg prices with all the money he’s supposedly saving?

My understanding is that he’s giving $400 million in direct subsidies to egg farmers, as part of a $1 billion package to USDA to lower the cost of eggs.

I’m as against trump as anyone else, but let’s say your candidate of choice was just put in power a month ago, would you expect new economic policies to have lowered the price of something nationwide? What’s the historical precedent for something like that? Biden releasing strategic reserve of oil comes to mind, and IIRC that didn’t put a dent in prices.

I worry that folks making a big deal out of this at this point in time are effectively being the same as the “I did this” Biden sticker folks, and idk about you but I sure thought they were asshats. Six months down the line, sure, hold him accountable for what he ran for. But idk how much economic impact a president has in two months time.

It’s the new “we’ll build a wall, and mexico will pay for it” - a clause so dumb that people will complain about that, unknowingly tugging “normalcy” a step in that direction.

Every dollar given to the IRS yields 5-9 dollars back in recovered taxes.

If I told you you could put a dollar in and multiply that by fivefold in a year, you’d be a fool to not leverage it.

If you were running america as a business, you would failing a fiducial duty by not investing in it.

Now, I wonder why the billionaires in charge of government don’t do it?

Hmm.