In a post titled “Trump is symbolic of the rot of the US government”, they were calling the concept of “harm reduction” (as in, voting for the person who’s not literally Hitler) “bullshit that liberals tell themselves because they know that what they support is evil”, because they’re a sane, mature human who is not at all stupid as hell.
They didn’t really like it when I pushed back on that narrative by pointing out that far more people have been harmed in the first 2 years of a Trump presidency than would have been over 8 years of a Harris presidency. Que sera, sera.
I agree with you to an extent, it’s hard to see how she could have been worse than Trump, who is literally deranged.
On the other hand, Harris will 100% be lining up to support a bailout for “too big too fail” AI companies when the bubble bursts, like all the rest of the “centrist” Dems. She’d also have kept supplying Israel no matter what they did, same as Biden, same as Trump, same as all the other Zionists. Would she have started a war with Iran? Probably not. But she might well have started a war with Russia or China to prove how “tough” she is - and that possibility has surely got to be in the double digits? The war machine must be fed, after all. I do agree she’d have perhaps been a little better on climate change policy and on social policy, at least wrt identity politics issues.
In any case, the policy of this community is to not shame people for being anti-electoralist. If someone wants to vote, go ahead. I also vote - because imo I might as well, it’s a low effort action. I just don’t expect it to lead to any big changes. But we don’t shame those who don’t want to vote, for whatever reason. If a political party genuinely wants to expand their voter base they are gonna have to make some meaningful policy changes, instead of just pointing a loaded gun at the electorate (aka Donald Trump) and declaring themselves to be somewhat less terrible on certain issues.