[hgoel]

I don't think "both sides" works very well when one side has been supporting the murder of citizens for exercising their free speech, calling for denaturalization of citizens for expressing the wrong opinions or being from the wrong community, openly suppressing criticism by threatening to revoke broadcast licenses and barring reporters from DoD briefings for not taking sufficiently flattering photos.

I don't think anyone posting here thinks that Democrats are pro-free speech and pro-privacy, and it would be great if we could have politicians that truly support free speech and privacy rights. But of the options currently available, one is much less bad than the other.

[StanislavPetrov]

>I don't think "both sides" works very well when one side has been supporting the murder of citizens for exercising their free speech

Obama was murdering US citizens for exercising their free speech, and their children, more than a decade ago.

>But of the options currently available, one is much less bad than the other.

If one person says they are going to stab 99 people and the other person says they are going to stab 100 people, you could argue that the guy who stabs 99 people isn't as bad, but I won't ever support either one of them or consider them worthwhile no matter how many others do.

[darthwalsh]

So in the trolley problem, you would abstain from supporting either side? I think that's actually a choice of supporting the status quo.

[StanislavPetrov]

You are entitled to your opinion that I'm supporting the status quo by refusing to support the abject murder and depravity of one group of people over another, who may be slightly less murderous and depraved, and I'm entitled to my opinion that you are complicit in the the murder and depravity of the people you support.

[Anvoker]

Trump's second term has had dire consequences for the US that are simply not on the same level as Obama, and it could have been avoided. The democrats are also terrible, but it's a matter of harm reduction. In this case, I would strongly argue that the difference was greater than 99 and 100.

You should vote to do harm reduction. Elections happen regardless of what you do. Whether 30% or 100% of Americans vote, the winners of elections still get access to the same amount of state power. The system does not require our political participation to continue to exert control our lives. Abstaining from voting is not an effective tactic in reducing the legitimacy of the system. That tactic might work in other situations, but not in this one.

I hope you will keep your distaste for both parties, but still vote for the lesser evil, even if it's distasteful. Because I think we should help that one person not get stabbed. And if indeed you have voted for the lesser evil and my post has a tone that assumes otherwise, I apologize.

[bit-anarchist]

Well, the "worst" side has currently returned to power, the other hasn't. There's no reason to belive that the other side wouldn't become worse in its own way to further solidify its power. Before you talk about priors, remember that Trump's 1st turn also wasn't as unhinged as this. While it is okay, perhaps advisable, to temporarily support the current less worse side, try to not build house for people that would gladly step on you once your usefulness runs out. As OP said: it's a small club, and you ain't in it.

[hgoel]

Yes, the point is to keep picking the option that's better on the things important to you. Blind loyalty is why the current guys are acting with such impunity.