“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”

That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.

  • jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can either keep shaming non-voters, or democrats could maybe do something for them once in a while that’s not a corporate giveaway disguised as policy.

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

      If a progressive is running against a fascist, and a moderate chooses not to vote because they think both options are “too extreme”, does that mean the progressive candidate inevitably leads to fascism?

      I’ll happily keep shaming non voters, because their logic makes no fucking sense and I hate such blithe idiocy. I’m no Democrat spokesperson nor party official. If a random person being mean to them online is enough for them to refuse to vote against bigotry, I couldn’t care less about their opinion.

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

        If a progressive is running against a fascist, and a moderate chooses not to vote because they think both options are “too extreme”, does that mean the progressive candidate inevitably leads to fascism?

        Last time moderates didn’t get their very first choice, they formed a PAC to fundraise for McCain/Palin.