“The guy is not a democrat with a small d,” the president told CNN’s Erin Burnett.
President Joe Biden said in an interview Wednesday he is all but certain Donald Trump, his predecessor and presumptive 2024 rival, will reject the results of the November election and called Trump “dangerous” for the nation.
“The guy is not a democrat with a small d,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett during a visit to Wisconsin this week.
“How many court cases do they have, Supreme Court cases? They’ve all said this is a totally legitimate election. … He may not accept the outcome of the election? I promise you he won’t. Which is dangerous.”
The president went on to say other world leaders had expressed to him their fear of a second Trump presidency and pointed to Trump’s pledge to prosecute his political opponents if he enters the Oval Office once more.
No, like chess, at a certain point it becomes clear that you’ve lost the game you’re playing. It doesn’t matter if you save your metaphorical pawn or not in this scenario, delaying with the lesser of two evils will not create any further opportunities to turn things around.
It is the end game, and it turns out that the using the lesser of two evils as a strategy for the past 7, 8, 9 election cycles has been a definiteively losing strategy. It has produced no favorable results, instead it has simply allowed fascism to creep in at a pace which the general public will acclimate to it. And once the majority is acclimated, there is nothing that anyone who cares can do.
Instead, you should not be playing a game with rules rigged by two parties, neither of whom actually have an interest or will to preserve democracy. Instead you should be turning the board over and refusing to play
Voting for the lesser of two evils has been the strategy since day 1. In 1860 both Lincoln and his opponent Douglas wanted to keep slavery (Lincoln only wanted to limit its spread), and worse, only some Americans were allowed to vote. Forget the far left, a modern moderate might refuse to vote at all in that election - why vote for Lincoln if you’re voting for someone who wants to keep something as abhorrent as slavery?
Yet voting for Lincoln nevertheless did move the needle against slavery and eventually led to its abolition. And voting for people we’d almost certainly see today as the lesser evil eventually would lead also to improvements in worker rights, universal suffrage, social security and medicare, ending segregation, gay rights, and the right to abortion - before refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils took that away.
It’s your right not to vote. But what happens - or doesn’t - is your responsibility.
You understand the needle didn’t move because of moderates and voting the lesser of two evils, right? Every major shift in progress in this country was accompanied by protest, conflict and refusal to go along with the status quo.
What about all the struggle and violence that directly led to those outcomes? The moderates who presided over those changes didn’t enact them out of the love of the game, they were compelled to in order to put a stop to the unrest.
oh great. here come all the shitty yeye ass takes