the answer is, dont engage with this kind of question. both men are unambiguously bad and we shouldnt argue further as to which one you should not vote for, neither one is deserving of a vote, not voting is always an option.

hypothetical questions like this that force you to choose between two bad options, they are actually bad discussions, like you should make a conscious effort to avoid these would you rather questions and try not to ask them.

comrades, especially our fediverse comrades, consider such kind of thoughts haram, do not be making false equivalencies. we do not believe in morality, we do not believe in good and evil, we are communists and our beliefs are derived from theory, nearly everything has a precedence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This is always the argument. Every four years this is the argument. It's always time to "deal with the current crisis by voting before we seriously discuss stopping the whole machine".

It's been decades and centuries of this argument, when is it actually the time to admit that fighting 'the current electoral crisis' isn't an important use of time, and that the only meaningful choice comes from promoting and enacting ideas outside of electoralism?