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.
One of the things with liberalism is that it's based on Idealism, rather than Materialism. That's why one of the most crucial aspects of training comrades is teaching Dialectical and Historical Materialism. .world is deeply Idealist, fervently so around elections.
Ironically, leftist organizing is stronger when the dems aren't in power. We can use those periods to radicalize and instill lasting values when libs see themselves as opposition, it's sneaky optics. Radicalization also works under the dems of course, it's just a different fight.