@gardiner_bryant Good guys? Where? If we talk about USA, sure Democrats are way better than the current political behavior of Republicans (mostly Trump), but I wouldn't call them good guys.
Lesser evil if you win.
However, I'm still satisfied with the result.
@The_Universality I'm not going to let this whataboutism stand, my friend. The choice was clear: wanton corporate cronyism and corruption or progressive candidates – real people – who live and work here.
Troy Jackson, Abdul El-Sayed, and James Talarico are not perfect... But they ARE good people. And that's not grading "good" on a curve, either. They are good. They won. Good guys won. And even folks like Angie Nixon, despite her loss, was still a winner. She'll win Florida in 2028.
@gardiner_bryant I do not really see what is whataboutism in my statement. If you can pinpoint it, please.
As for the "good people". I'm not saying all are terrible. What I wish is to express my opinion on this hyper correction that the "fall" of Republicans will make everything perfect.
Now, it is indeed true that Democrats are going with better goals, ideals and are actually trying to do at least something with the corporate state the USA is.
But I'd be still vary.
@The_Universality I hear "lesser of two evils" and that smacks of whataboutism to me.
By that, you're saying: "Sure, Democrats are better than Republicans, but what about the fact that Democrats are evil?"
I loathe the Democratic party establishment. They're complicit in Trump's executive overreach. But I wasn't saying "good guys win" because Chuck Schumer's picks were victorious. I was saying "good guys win" because progressive candidates that Schumer didn't want to win, won.
I see your point.
The way that you've written it may imply the argument being whether it matters who one votes as no matter how much any of those is evil since they both are.
The way I see it is similar with the difference being that lesser evil is always preferable.
It is (in my experience) better to see parties as foes and better foe is always preferable.
(1/2)
And I'd like to ass that Democrats, while certainly less corrupt, had their share of scandals as well.
Simply put, the party isn't perfect.
Is it better? Certainly yes.
My initial problem was the way you "celebrated" it. The "black and white" comparison between good and bad.
(Although, it is tempting even for me, to be fair.)
But after all, it might be just a behavioral difference between us.
@The_Universality I'm not really celebrating "democrats win." I was specifically celebrating progressive candidates who won against big, dark money opposition without accepting corporate campaign financing. Troy Jackson, El-Sayed, and Talarico specifically.
@gardiner_bryant I see. Your first post was speaking "generally" so that's why I though you was celebrating the win of the entire party.
That's partly my bad as well.
@The_Universality currently, my country's party "system" is just an extension of corporate bullshit. It's a money laundering scheme that runs cover for national candidates. So I agree with you on that front.
But it's too cynical to say "the lesser of two evils" because less politically literate folks hear that and throw up their hands in disgust. It causes them to opt out and disengage, IMO. That's precisely how we end up with Trumpism.
@gardiner_bryant I see.
That I failed to consider and you are partly correct here.
But I use this way of thinking to "push" people to go vote. Since most want no or less evil.