It's inflation plus 2%, nothing spectacular but still a solid win for the union.

Local races are actually important even if the electoral college makes my solid blue state federal votes worthless.

Trump knows he's going to lose and isn't wasting time with the paperwork.

Y'all seem to misunderstand, Harris already won the election months ago when Biden dropped out. It isn't defeatism to resign myself to another four years of trying to convince the Democrats to maybe stop helping boil the planet and blow up foreign kids.

It's true, though. America is not and has never been a Democracy, the only votes that matter are thosr cast in swing counties in a few states.

it does seem to equate a lack of variety in choices is the same as a lack of choice

That would seem to be a fundamental point of contention there. In my perspective, a distinction without a difference is a distinction in name only. If there's no variety to a choice then it might as well be moot, the only people who have agency are the ones who constrained the window of choosable options.

Anyways, I'm happy to share my weird perspective on politics. It's always nice when folks actually listen instead of just ending the conversation by declaring me part of their opposition. XD

?

While I agree with you in the ideal scenario, wouldn't the end result of not voting for the lesser evil lead to the outcome where the greater evil wins anyways?

Only in the short term, because the victory of the greater evil activates people politically. That's how we got Biden in 2020, it was as inevitable as Harris' victory next month.

In that case, realistically, wouldn't a lack of a vote be practically equivalent to a vote for the greater evil?

No, abstaining is abstaining regardless. All blame directed at uncommitted voters is in reality a fault of the parties that fail to appeal to them.

The voters cannot be blamed for the lacl of choice they were given, to do so is to insist that the parties have a right to make demands of the voters rather than the other way around.

it does seem that the people who support the republicans seem to be a lot more passionate in voting for their end?

Yup. They've got a party that promotes their sense of greivance and Democrats can't match that energy without moving left and alienating their right-wing campaign financiers.

I lost my faith in the American political system over 20 years ago...

It's not defeatism, it's political realism based on an understanding that the USA is not and has never been a democracy. The only two parties that matter get to pick their constituencies and they cannot fail, they can only be failed by the usual electoral scapegoats.

And in any case, the DNC knows they're winning this election so why should they risk alienating their corporate and billionaire donors by appealing to the idealism of the youth?

Also, I don't believe in lesser-evilism. If a party can't pass an anti-genocide bar that's so low as to be subterranean, then they aren't getting my vote.

And that's the problem.

I agree, it's a very serious problem that the Democrats continue to push policy that is unpopular with young folks.

Why do they need someone to inspire them

Because elections are popularity contests.

they should also be interested and invested in their own future

They very clearly are, but there aren't any American political parties that are invested in their future. Just ones that pretend to cater to them while selling them out to the oil and weapons industries.

somehow this seems like a wild idea in the US?

Yeah, it sucks. Any time you start talking about making the future suck less, Republicans start calling you a commie socialist and Democrats kick you out of the group chat.

If talking about Democrat policies is disparaging to the party then I don't know how I'm supposed to explain why the young folks aren't excited to vote without disparaging the party. XD

Then either you think that young people will be turning out in droves this election or that some other reason is why they aren't excited to vote.

They won't, there's nobody to inspire them like Bernie, just pro-fracking, genocide-sponsoring Democrats and even worse Republicans.

No "AI" required~

A lot of people with a common trait, they identify with the Republican party.

I would encourage you to be respectful regardless. No one will hear you if you are treating them with contempt.

They won't hear it anyway, studies show that debate is extremely unlikely to change anyone's mind. The point of arguing with Republicans isn't to "be heard" by the kind of people who would prefer to see me dead or worse, it is to demonstrate to them that their bullshit will not be quietly tolerated.

Personally I think that low taxes and small government are valid perspectives.

Personally, I think trying to pass off a couple of slogans as if they were a policy position is a typical form of Republican intellectual dishonesty and I love making them squirm by asking detailed questions about what they mean.

I think it's important to treat them as human, listen to their concerns and respectfully point out their hypocrisy when it happens.

You've got that precisely backwards, as is typical of American liberals.

Republicans are not ashamed of their hypocrisy, they are empowered by it. To be taken seriously despite the disconnect between their words and deeds is a position of power that they believe they have the right to exercise over all their lessers.

In fact, this hypocritical immunity is a cornerstone of conservative politics. Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

They literally do not care so long as the hypocrisy benefits those "on their side" and harms those lower in the hierarchy they defend.

The way forward will involve listening, respect, and a bit of compromise.

And how, precisely, do you plan on forcing Republicans to compromise their principles in such a fashion? To paraphrase another common saying, "It is almost impossible to get a man to agree to something when his political identity depends on his refusal to do so."

There are lots of chat clients.

Fortunately, only Discord is also trying to be a for-profit walled garden, a support forum, an in-game voice chat app, a community hub, a media channel, a political soapbox, a video game store, a livestreaming service, a bot playground, and now, apparently, a pirate fileshare.

Worse, it's in the channel's name.

This is my genuine opinion and I don't appreciate the condescension.

You don't have to like it, but trying to dismiss it as mere trolling is, at best, intellectually dishonest.