• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The problem is, that’s been my entire life. And now I’ve seen the “less harmful” side actively stop people who would help from getting elected. Even to funding the “more harmful” side.

    At some point you have to stop. Why can’t I vote to just hit the brakes?

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You’re one of the four people who didn’t vote for ice cream or driving off a cliff. Instead you decided to write-in frozen yogurt.

      The cliff drivers still win, and you still ain’t got no froyo.

      It’s cool if ice cream isn’t for you. Thats fine. I think most of us, even if we don’t want ice cream…hell, even if we’re lactose intolerant, would rather go along to the ice cream parlor than to drive off the cliff. Because like it or not, those are the only two realistic options.

      Also the harm-reduction strategy really only applies to the top of the ballot. It’s been that way my whole adult life, too. It sucks, but if you want any change, it’s not going to start at the top of the ballot. It’s going to start at the bottom.

      There are two main parties at the top of the ballot and they aren’t moving easily. There’s a lot of reasons for that, but at the end of the day, right now, they are the two, and that’s not changing except from the bottom up. From the not-fiercely-challenged races.