It's a trolley problem, and there's two tracks: we literally can't choose most outcomes at all, being worse or 'more worse' depending on which track. It's inexorable, it will be one of two tracks it will only be one of two tracks and it is otherwise im...
-
Oliphantom Menacewrote last edited by [email protected]
It's a trolley problem, and there's two tracks: we literally can't choose most outcomes at all, being worse or 'more worse' depending on which track. It's inexorable, it will be one of two tracks it will only be one of two tracks and it is otherwise impossible for the outcome to involve anything but one of two tracks.
That's the reality of the situation.
At least one of those tracks involves federal judges with lifetime appointments not being overt paper tigers for authoritarian despots, so that's something we can actually vote for/against, because that distinction is on the ballot.
I don't know why anyone puts much more significance on it than that. We clearly can't vote against fracking, we can't vote for Gaza, we can't vote for a lot of things. But we've got judges, and I want fewer quack judges ruining people's lives, that seems like an actual net good here, and worth influencing the outcome one way or another.
It's not an endorsement. It's actually a quite cynical, but resigned pragmatism.
(And no, there is no viable third track, by the way, that's just a glitch in the lever, until we tear down the system.)