Then I guess we just have different definitions because my interpretation/understanding was a leftist who votes for Trump in order to let Trump do Trump and get everyone riled up enough to revolt.
The catch, of course, is that the yellow line ideal on that chart is actually what Biden promised to do. In reality of course, Biden has kept drilling just as high as Trump did and opened up tons of new land to drilling. So I'm not even that convinced of the chart's supposition. In either case, this chart demonstrates exactly the point that the person quoting the chart is making. Pick someone besides these two, they're useless.
It hasn't worked because people don't do it. The races are too close. So only centrist candidates feel safe.
I'm not talking about voting tactics (at least, not here and now). If you want to make an argument that its better to vote for a third party for whatever reason, sure, be my guest. Nor am I saying the Dems' actions or promises are sufficient, which they're obviously not.
I imagine they're actually asking to fix the problem, not just live out our own lives in relative comfort at the expense of future generations. Or, "there is less difference between Trump and Biden than there is between Biden and the end of the the Arctic and Antarctica"
Perhaps the Tweeter. But what I took from this post was that the difference in timeframe is unimportant. And I think it bears pointing out that difference in timeframe could decide an enormous number of lives.
No, that's bullshit centrist thinking that eliminates the idea that you can vote for better. Take your bullshit nonsense elsewhere centrist. Learn to read other people's posts and listen to their ideas instead of shaming them.
I do not think both sides are literally the same and have no problem saying Democrats are better than Republicans.
A funny thing to say, when you've just resorted to shaming insults yourself rather than engagement.
You started it by creating positions for other people.
You'd have to be on the left first to understand. Not some sheepdog centrist.
Fair enough. There's a valid argument to be made that the threat of withheld support from the left could convince Democrats to adopt better policies. So long as we're honest about risking that significantly worse scenario for a chance to convince them.
Any brand of leftism that treats the poorest in society as expendable pawns isn't leftism.
Here, I'll admit to gambling with those lives if you admit that choosing Biden (or your local Biden equivalent, Starmer) is actively choosing a candidate who is hastening the destruction of the world. You can say it's to a slower extent than one other option of your choice, but you have to say you're actively picking a killer.
Yes, they are hastening the destruction of the world. This is not a new admission for me; I've been pretty open about that. They're destructive shitheads and voting for them is a tactical decision, which I think is necessary. Ignoring that would be as dishonest as pretending the difference between him and the Tories is immaterial to millions of people.
Alright then. I don't actively choose bad candidates. I don't have to pick options that destroy the world, so I won't. I'd rather convince people to actually vote in their best interest.
He did do that, but he also provided a hell of a lot of the weapons that are driving the necessity of aid in the first place, and is allowing an ally to block numerous other avenues of aid.
"The Hamas-run government media office in Gaza accused Washington of "trying to improve its ugly image" with the pier. In line with comments by the U.N., humanitarian groups and Washington itself, Hamas said the U.S. pier wasn't enough to meet the humanitarian needs and demanded greater aid shipments to the enclave by land."
