It’s about trying to achieve goals, and the importance of knowing when you’ve maximized the achievement possible without ruining your chances of achieving the goal by pressing further.

And in a scenario where the two outcomes are Trump or Hitler, Trump is the good achievement as that means millions of people don’t get murdered and the country is better off thereby maximizing progress toward our goal.

Trump being less shitty than Hitler doesn’t make Trump good.

It sounds like you’re starting to understand the point. Newsom being less shitty than Trump doesn’t make Newsom good either, yet here we are being told that he is despite their shared ideologies simply because he has a (D) next to his name instead of an ®. “Vote blue no matter who.”

It doesn’t mean “I can imagine something worse, therefore this terrible choice I do not want is now alright with me”.

Yet that’s precisely how it’s being used.

She’ll probably get more perks just like the last time the DOJ met with her.

Previously they met and after she released a statement saying that Donald Trump wasn’t a client of Epstein’s. Shortly after, she was transferred to a “club fed” prison where she gets to roam freely, have yoga classes, etc. They’re likely going to do something similar again.

Perhaps she will answer questions about Democrats and plead the 5th the rest of the time. Perhaps they’ll even give her immunity for her “brave” testimony about how Bill and Hilary Clinton were the real ring leaders. I doubt any part of the process will be good for the country.

Trump is “good” because he’s not as bad as Hitler was. Therefore, we should be glad to have him despite him not being “perfect.” I’m not sure what’s unclear about that.

Normally that saying is used in a context where someone is potentially getting some of what they actually want, because getting all of what they want is not feasible

In your example you seem to be using it like it means you get a choice of either a negative outcome or a worse negative outcome

These two statements mean the exact same thing.

Trump hasn’t sent millions of Americans to the gas chamber (the “good”), and that’s better than the alternative right? If you put any value in this expression then how could you possibly disagree with this?

As long as a worse possibility exists or can be imagined, this saying can be used to justify quite literally anything, which is why it’s completely worthless outside of trying to make your opponent seem unreasonable in an argument regardless of the topic.

No, they’re just a different flavor of Republican.

They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.

This just happened in June

And then again a few weeks ago in December…

I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.

They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.

This just happened in June

And then again a few weeks ago in December…

I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.

They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.

This just happened in June

And then again in December…

I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.

Don’t forget BlueAnon too. The people currently arguing with me in a separate post about how we shouldn’t be complaining about all the inaction from Democrats because now’s not the right time to act and they’ve totally got some 4D chess move planned for the future - COMING SOON®™

It’s not a saying, it’s a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down discussions by making your opponent seem “unreasonable” under any circumstance. For example, one could say “We should appreciate having Donald Trump as president because Hitler caused a lot more harm. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” and be just as accurate as what you’re saying now.

I love AOC and sanders and walz as much as anyone here, but until one of them is electable, we’re kinda stuck in this chicken or the egg problem here. Like it or not, and to be clear i do not, someone with true leftist bona fides isn’t yet electable in the US.

What’s the scenario where they “become electable” in your mind, and what exactly is the path between here and there that involves electing more Bidens and Newsoms while being continuously told that anyone better is unelectable?

That must be why the country has been so awesome during all that time!

Fetterman/Gabbard 2028! Yes we can!!1!

Politics only happens with an election

This statement doesn’t make any sense.

And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?

Yes.

If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.

Well then it must follow that there’s no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right? Democrats should only go after the easy wins and instant gratification because nobody will remember any of this at any point in the future.

Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.

So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward? If they’re not doing this now or at any point in the past, why would they do it in the future? What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren’t enough?

Nope. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-election-non-voters-coalition

They likely gave up because they realized that trying to impeach him is just adding fuel to his bases fire.

You gotta realize that Trump has a third of the country believing that he is a victim of political persecution. The “witch hunt” rhetoric was taken hook, line, and sinker. They sincerely and earnestly believe that Trump is a good man with a righteous vision, who is targeted by “the radical left”, which is “weaponizing” the DoJ or the impeachment process.

But if we apply this logic then Democrats should never oppose Trump or any other Republican, and where does that leave us? I find this quite ridiculous as not only does it excuse Democratic inaction but also mandates that they bend over backwards to support him in the future for fear of losing their job (a job that quite literally is to represent the people).

Merrick Garland lost his shot at SCOTUS because instead of fighting back when the law was fully on their side nearly a year before the 2016 election, they arrogantly thought that they were guaranteed to win and Clinton would then get the nomination. They again backed down in 2020 just a month before the election and allowed Republicans to ram a nomination through. They backed down in Texas and allowed the Republican legislature to gerrymander districts and pick up several seats. They backed down on the government shutdown and allowed Republicans to take away our healthcare. They backed down and allowed the passage of the BBB. They’re backing down and allowing the capture of a sovereign nation’s president. They’re backing down and allowing ICE to murder citizens in the streets.

These are all reasons why they’re losing elections. They’re supposed to be the opposition party yet they refuse to oppose anything and even vote alongside Republicans often enough. Refusing to acknowledge this is why Trump won in 2016. It’s why he nearly one again in 2020, and it’s why he won in 2024. With each passing day they look more and more like they’re all members of the same party because that’s the only logical explanation for what’s happening. Using the same tired excuses over and over and over only gets you so far before people see right through the BS.

We just lost the most important election of our lifetimes because that isn’t so.

We lost that election because both the Republican and Democratic candidates thought pushing right wing ideology was the best tactic. Turns out that only works for one of the party’s base.

So your argument boils down to “Democrats shouldn’t oppose Trump & Co because it might hurt their chances at reelection?” What kind of nonsense is that?

There are no repercussions because they don’t have the numbers to actually get an impeachment without Republicans joining forces with them, which is unlikely to happen but even a potentially fruitless endeavor is better than sitting by doing absolutely nothing while the nation burns in front of our eyes.

This person is using the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children as a tool to mock others all because they’re mad that a stranger didn’t win a contest. I don’t see what they’re doing as any different than what Republicans are doing now in comment sections across the internet over the murder of Renee Good.

This user and those Republicans share a lot more ideologically than either would care to admit, so I have no problem with my comment sounding arrogant/superior to their abhorrent behavior.

The supplement dissolves completely and is odorless and tasteless. You’d never know it was in the coffee or even in a pure cup of water

I have had the “chunky” fiber supplement and found it disgusting as it is like pulp and I hate pulp.

Strawman argument. People didnt abstain from voting for Harris because it would “save” Gaza. They did it because both candidates shared the common ideal of bombing Gaza to smithereens and they refused to support that.

It’s incredibly disgusting for people like you to now mock others for opposing genocide just because your preferred candidate thought that supporting slaughter was more important than defeating her opponent and it all blew up in her face.

Maybe you should hitch your wagon to better candidates if you don’t want to be disappointed. That’s on you not anyone else. Even now more than a year after the election was decided, you still think standing alongside genocide and Dick Cheney was the right call and can’t understand why you lost. You are the company you keep, buddy.

This is a perfect example of why they’re losing support. Less than half of them even support this despite there being zero repercussions from doing so. Remember when Republicans held 60+ separate votes to eliminate “Obamacare” throughout Obama’s second term despite them not having a majority to guarantee passage of the bill and it seeming completely fruitless? Look where they are ten years later and tell me which is the more effective approach.