You can keep your Tea: Why the Lesser of Two Evils mentality is Authoritarian, Selfish, and Narcissistic
This post is a response a post made by fellow Allthink poster James A. Lindsay in what in my personal opinion has to the worst post I have yet seen on the site. So bad that I felt a response was warranted.
For the record I have nothing against James. He's a talented writer. Don't confuse disagreements with personal grudges. Allthink is a platform dedicated to free speech, not political hegemony. So I believe discussing disagreements should be encouraged.
But let's get started with the post.
Basically James argues that we should vote for Hillary and tries to make the case by resorting to hyperbolic immature comparisons that do not constitute an argument while portraying any critic of Clinton as toddlers who want to see the US burn.
The first half of the article can't even be really considered an article, but him posting a group of tweets by novelist Chuck Wendig who tries to portray Hillary as a simple politician and Trump as a plague upon man. This is not me being hyperbolic, this is what the tweets actually say.
Which brings me to the first argument of this post, the "Lesser of two evils" point. The article is solely based on the idea that Hillary is the lesser of two evils.
But the article never provides an actual example of why Trump is worse than Hillary. It's largely just a group of tweets calling Trump a "Plague unto man" "The actual Devil" "Scorpion infested lava shit" "Fascist fuckery" while never actually providing any examples, citations or arguments. So the primary argument in this article, that Trump is worse than Clinton is not backed by any evidence. In fact there's a very strong case to be made that Hillary is far worse.
To quote the Green Party candidate Jill Stein: "So we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing,"
And this isn't far from the truth. Let's consider the things that people hate Trump the most for:
Trump said he'll place a ban on Muslim refugees and deport countless of immigrants. Hillary actually backed deporting immigrant children and barred refugees from Honduras from entering the country, refugees who where fleeing a coup that for the record she was involved with.
Trump said he would build a border wall. Clinton has actually done so, voting for a bill that would put a 650 miles long border wall and even bragging about it during her campaign which former Democrat candidate Martin O'Malley even called her out on.
What else...Trump making racist statements? Clinton got you covered. Trump being supposedly backed by a dictatorship? Hillary is bankrolled by multiple. Trump being Islamophobic? He hasn't caused the brutal deaths of innocent Muslims via multiple unnecessary wars. Trump not a friend of free speech? Clinton has a very long record on that. Trump has been described as incompetent and unqualified? Just look how the FBI described her.
James wants to desperately portray Hillary as a progressive centrist, a simple milquetoast Democrat who is experienced and reliable. But the very opposite is true. She's an authoritarian corrupt warmonger with an extremely terrible track record as politician, clear ties to dictatorships and multinationals, riddled with scandals, who can't be trusted with classified information, and who by all means should be in prison right now.
So all the hyperbolic try-hard name calls aside. Is there even a proper argument to be had that Clinton is actually the lesser of two evils? Because unlike you I have actually provided evidence that the opposite is true.
But whether one or not is actually the lesser of two evils is hardly relevant, the point is that both are evil. Why should people have to vote for the lesser of two evils? My answer: we shouldn't.
And i'm absolutely sick and tired of the disgusting narcissistic mentality that the two party candidates somehow think they're owed votes from people they disagree with purely because they can blackmail and shame voters by pointing to the other one. It does not work that way.
"But if you don't vote for Hillary then Trump will win"
That's this terrifying thing called Democracy. If you're not liked people won't vote for you, and if you don't get enough votes you lose.
You want to blame the voters for not wanting to vote for Hillary? No, blame Hillary for being such an unlikable blowhard that they're not interested in voting for her. She doesn't just owe you votes. She's meant to prove and persuade people that she earns the votes, and with the clear corruption and rigging that her campaign has committed that has clearly not worked.
When you are saying that people should take their Tea with Vinegar and vote for Hillary, you're making a statement of pure selfishness. You're saying that the views of progressives, libertarians, socialists, conservatives, ect should not be represented, that they should have to give up their own views purely to suck up to someone that they don't stand with. Not only is that extremely insulting to people's own intelligence but it is a pure narcissism.
Feel free to call people "spoiler toddlers" for daring to criticize the queen. But the reality is that your article makes you sound like the spoiled toddler. Your article is nothing more than hyperbolic jargon and immature narcissism dressed up in neat word salad without any substance in it whatsoever. You should be better than this.
But hey after the election, at least you can proudly say that you voted for Kodos.
UPDATE: I've noticed that James has responded to me, if you can call damage controlling a response. I am not going to bother responding to his response or even comment on his response for the reason that he has been nothing but disrespectful, immature, and insulting towards me ever since i dared to criticize him. I thought we'd be able to have a mature discussion regarding this issue but clearly I was proven wrong by his behavior.