It's like these libs believe that Kamala is entitled to our vote.
If I didn't vote for 
, then I simply would not vote! It's not "PSL or Kamala;" it's "PSL or sit on my ass at home."
I know libs don't understand nuance, but it still is so frustrating that they put this framing on me where they assume that I have any actual interest in a Kamala president over a Trump presidency.
Not only that, but this person called Claudia de la Cruz a "clowny leftist with no choice of winning" (which isn't the point of a third party vote; let's be real), but I just told the lib, "You call her clowny, but you are literally guilt tripping and insulting me just because I won't vote for someone who is actively greenlighting a genocide on Palestinians." and then I blocked.
Whether Trump or Kamala wins, I'll enjoy social media outrage from either side, but it seems like what I'll see from liberals in the case of a Trump election will be more entertaining. I truly think libs are beyond being redeemed, and that even goes for the more "progressive" types who appropriate the label of "democratic socialist" like Bernie and AOC. I don't adhere to lesser-evilism, so I'm not gonna pretend that this one-party state with two parties has one side over the other functioning in a way that could especially benefit me.
yeah, there's a difference between west wing sorkinites and people who are borderline uninvolved in politics but vote blue because red is vocally unhinged in a way that blue (usually) avoids. like a lib who works at wal mart is much more reachable than a lib who works at raytheon and it's kind of ridiculous to pretend that's not the case
Yep, that's my point. Within the liberal current that votes Kamala there are the theoryless that vote her out of fear of Trump, and the souless that vote her joyfully. The former are still important to reach, the latter are a lost cause (basically all of Lemmy.world).