He’s not our man. No, he’s not. Despite that, there sure are a lot of folks here who were eager to hand him the keys of the country, and continue to to defend their choice. The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. Mostly agree, with the caveat that it’s not all pomp and circumstance, only mostly pomp and circumstance. Take genocide for example, which seems to be the theme of the thread: we didn’t get the choice of no genocide, our only options were more vs less. Those are shitty options, but if we have that wiggle room, it’s worth voting for less in order to prevent more. Damage mitigation. Still genocide, still shitty options, but tangibly distinct options. We’re given a crumb of freedom - use it. It’s the only official voice we’ve got. Fortunately there lots of other options too - everything from shouting into the void like I’m doing here in this thread, to throwing molotovs at Nazis: each tool comes with its own risk-to-impact ratio. Voting is low impact, but it’s safe and (for most people) accessible. It’s the bare minimum. There’s a lot of strawman in this thread against the non-existent argument of voting and only voting. I’m with you on that one: that would be fucking stupid. But that’s not what I’m advocating for.