While rebutting another post here on Lemmy, I ran into this. This says exactly what I want to say.
I am not a friend of Biden’s Administration. I think they drug their feet over a variety of things ranging from holding Trump and his goons accountable for January 6th through rulemaking on issues like OTC Birth Control and abortion rights, and yes, I think he’s too quick to please big business. But then I remember what the alternative is, and … well, disappointed in Biden or not, I’m voting for him. Because my wife is a Black bisexual goth woman, four strikes under Team Pepe’s tent. And I have my own strikes for marrying her as a White dude, and respecting her right to not have kids since she doesn’t want them is another strike against me. And I care about my Non-Christian, Gay, Transgender, and Minority friends, and will never willingly subject them to Team Pepe.
Well, to be fair, I actually didn’t say you were saying not to vote for Biden until my very last comment. My first comment to you attacked the foundation of your argument, that you must vote for a monster to avoid harm coming to somebody else. Biden isn’t a monster. And I explained why he isn’t. And I explained that even with your ‘concern’ over what Biden has or hasn’t done RE: Israel, there is still only one choice for President, and that’s Biden.
But if we’re going to start accusing each other of dishonest debate tactics…what might it be called when somebody has concerns about how things are going, who thinks that both sides are equally bad, and who reacts to any criticism with semi-polite attacks on the ‘tone’ of the argument in order to try to make a person with an argument they don’t like look bad. So if we’re going to play this game, you might want to be careful with the stones in your glass house, buddy. ;)
Why not answer my point that Biden isn’t a monster, eh?