Jeremy [Iowa] @ jeremy_sylvis @midwest.social

aka [@jsylvis@lemmy.world](https://lemmy.world/u/jsylvis)

---

Read more

Posts

5

Comments

402

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh, her being adversarial with progressives was pretty well-known. Not the legacy I'd want.

What bizarre white-knighting.

It could just be that an abhorrent politician has earned her reputation by her own merit rather than by gender.

For real. I've begun to associate "@lemmy.world" with the most average r/Politics liberal takes and talking points.

"withhold criticism from this candidate because the other is worse" is not the defense you seem to think it is.

I can’t fathom why someone would “choose” an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely

Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans? I realize I've been out of school a while, but my understanding was it did not.

. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.

Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they're not as bad as a different party?

Oh, hey, how about that - didn't expect to see an r/Iowa refugee over here. Welcome to the greener pastures that are generally just as painfully, unthinkingly liberal but far less cancerous.

It's not surprising - a captive market can be great for business when one is in good relations with those making the rules.

On a side note, is there an easy list of these orgs and their contributions?

Rather, I reject the flawed nature of the metaphor and its poor fit. That's true - someone will take office... and you're not obligated to choose to be shot in either the leg or the head. You can, say, make no choice. You can choose, say, the hand.

We're all going to be shot through what some choose. Some will go for everyone getting headshot, some will go for everyone losing a leg... and roughly the same will decide such a choice is absurd and not make a choice at all. Some few will choose something less damaging entirely.

More like "I'm just not going to choose to be shot, thanks, you all have fun with that".

That requires active engagement in one's community beyond vote-shaming and whining on social media - you're not going to see much of this from either party.

Actual community involvement is hard. let's go joe, blue no matter who, if you don't vote blue you enable fascists etc. is easy and still lets them feel good about doing something... even if it's ultimately ineffective.

They're too busy clutching pearls because we dare defend the right to bear arms. At this point, it really can't be good for the pearls.

Citation: Needed.

Sure.

Do you think that's likely to prevent it from being fought, construed as arbitrary and capricious, and in front of Benitez?

This is the era of partisan dick swinging, after all.

Common federal judge W these days

I see Newsom is going for the "stricken down as unconstitutional" high score. I wonder how long it'll be until we see this one going to Benitez...

Immediately before ... spiking the federal reserve rate.

I'm only aware of LaVeyan Satanism as an alternative.

The Satanic Temple is incredibly based. I've been a member since they started trolling Iowa legislators a year or two ago with Iowa Satanic Temple School in response to the school choice nonsense.