Voting is always an ethical dilemma. For people thinking about voting for Joe Biden, one of the things that they might not be thinking about as they fantasize about the somewhat remote possibility of a liberal stalwart replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the higher probability that Biden, given his history, will start another war in the Middle East.
The Electoral Trolley Problem
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
13 Comments. Leave new
While Mr Trump, pretending to be the «peace candidate» merely continues the wars he inherited from his predecessor, moving troops around to give the impression that a drawdown is in progress, while increasing the number of military contractors, who are not counted as US troops….
The real foreign policy question here is rather how these two figures intend to deal with China and Russia – given their records, no good can come from either of them….
Henri
Don’t forget the next turning point in the track. If, um, Biden is elected, not only will there be a war in the Middle East, but a whole lot of people will stop being upset. “Well, we stopped Trump. I’m done. Sure glad there’s nothing I need to worry about now. With Joe (the Crime Bill) and Kamala (I deliberately lock up the innocent because I get off on it), I’m sure black people will be treated fairly.”
Right now, we’ve got seven storms on the NHC map now for the Atlantic. Seven. Sally’s about to body slam New Orleans. We have got to wake up. Trump isn’t the enemy. He’s just a simpleton. But if we put Biden in charge, we can kiss good-bye the next decade. And that’s the end.
Choosing between a Democratic or Republican candidate is like choosing between a plastic or paper sack, either way, the plutocrats wins and you’re left holding the bag. Vote Quimby!
And if you don’t fill in the dot for Biden, what do you get? Another 4 years of Trump, with the same odds of RBG passing but being replaced by a hard-right Federalist Society judge instead (or maybe even Justice Ted Cruz ) that throws the Supreme Court into 5 – 4 hard-right bloc even if Roberts resists. And with Trump you get a war with Iran or Venezuela – or both! Sure, Biden isn’t the perfect Liberal candidate, but at least I don’t think he’d let hundreds of thousands of Americans die of COVID.
His “plan” for the environment will kill multiples more than what COVID could get to. It’ll take longer is all.
«… but at least I don’t think he’d let hundreds of thousands of Americans die of COVID» Do you mean to say, Dan, that had Mr Biden been US president, he would have fixed the dysfuntional (but immensely profitable) US healthcare system which has contributed so greatly to the number of Covid-19 deaths in your country ? Just what part of his legislative or administrative record leads you to believe that ?…
Henri
I don’t choose Biden or Trump.
I blame their existence (as inevitabilities) on the people who will vote for them.
There will be one or the other, but I blame you (who will vote for them) for being as responsible for them as they are for themselves.
They hide their emptiness before the empty crowds of the empty that they desire to devour only to fill their own emptiness.
Is it too late to learn to scorn the empty choices of the empty as if they were inescapable?
This is not the most important election of your lives.
The most important elections of your lives have passed years ago, and all who voted then have collectively failed the test.
Choosing today will not be for a better tomorrow, but will be only a punishment for yesterday’s failings.
All who enter here abandon all hope.
Re: ” … at a time when the Democrats control the Senate, there is a small chance (Ginsburg) will be replaced by a liberal.”
Since the issue is replacement of a justice of the SCOTUS, in the age of Sen. McTurtle (and totally politically feckless Dems), “control of the Senate” means ≥60 seats. The Dems DID manage that in the exciting 2008 election of hope, change and 70 million votes for “our first black president.” That unassailable senate majority was in effect … at least for a few months … but NOTHING fundamental was attempted, much less achieved.
However, to expect the Dems to achieve 60 Seanate seats in the upcoming election is a bit fantastical given the profound “downswell” of enthusiasm for candidate Joe “vote for someone else” Biden. A down-slate sweep cannot be attained when voters stay home out of complete boredom and, for many, a desire not to validate a party that, apparently, only has contempt for the voters it purports to serve.
Of course, ol’ Joe (neo Jim Crow) Biden could win, have 100 seats in the senate but still offer 0.00% chance of nominating anyone more liberal than, say, Garland Merritt (or was that Merritt Garland) who was THE reason we were supposed to vote Obumma (the new Jim Crow’s boss, don’cha know) in 2012. Of course, fecklessness ruled as even consideration of Obumma’s nominee was rejected. The Dems whimpered, again.
Note it was reported that reason to vote “Dem” in 2012 had a judicial record indistinguishable from the guy who ultimately got the seat, His Harness’s nominee Kavanaugh … of yet more “youthful pecadillos” fame who took the seat reserved by Sen McTurtle.
Justice Ginsburg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about two weeks after Obumma took his first oath of office. It’s incredible that she’d survived this long … but she should have resigned, then at age 76, no more than 20 minutes after receiving that diagnosis.
Ginsberg dies, Trump to pick Supreme Court replacement, McConnell plans replacement vote before election, while patsy Democrats continue to lie down and act as if they were recently dead. Again.
[This is my early prediction. Prove me wrong Democrats.]
Why are the Democrats even there? Their only function is to make people think they care about them while obstructing progress and blaming Republicans in order to excuse their own fecklessness.
Every time I call or write to my Democrat Representatives I ask them why it is that I need to call them about an issue. Why don’t they have a clue about what needs to be done? Why do I have to keep on calling them to tell them to do what they should be doing without being repeatedly told to do it by me?
Just out of curiousity, Glenn, but how do your «Democrat representatives» respond – if at all – to your admonitions ?…
Henri
I asked Senator Simon (in person after a public meeting on a different matter) why Reagan’s wars in Central America were claimed to be supported by the Pope when that was not the fact at all.
Democrats are unable to call a lie a lie.
Simon said that when Democrats would announce a press conference no media would show. Weak excuse. The idea of Democrats using activist tactics like Republicans do to call attention to issues just doesn’t occur to them, or is beneath their dignity. /s
Jan Schakowski held an anti Iraq war meeting against Bush, but later when I confronted her about Obama’s war escalation in Afghanistan all she could offer was some vaguely apologetic mumbles in a letter to me in response.
I was once in attendance at a Democratic women’s meeting with the Illinois Attorney General and asked him why he had a huge backlog of untested rape kits. The disgusting part of this was that the women did not want me to make their guest uncomfortable. This was when I was running as a nominating convention delegate for the 2004 Democratic Party.
The rape kit backlog is still huge.
We need a party and an electorate that actually cares.
«We need a party and an electorate that actually cares.» Good luck with that, Glenn !…
Henri
That’s the way it is, Henri.
Fake elections are the way people learn to accept being losers while blaming themselves for not working hard enough. (Wasn’t that what the Horse did in Animal Farm?)
Unless they figure out the game.
Calling elections fake is not false proposition. But calling elections fake can be a justification to be a fake too, like the duopoly is.
I just like to call fakers fake just in case some of them might see that some people know their game.
Then some might seek the advantage of turning the tables on fakers instead of joining them by promising something and then actually keeping their promise. That could be revolutionary.
Mostly, for now, I find calling the fakes out more effective and fun than voting for them.
Thank you for your fake concern.