But he voted Trump in 2016. I think that’s what @Chuymatt@beehaw.org meant by a ‘historical conservative’.

You raise a fair point: what exactly is a zombie? To me, a zombie is not a sapient thing, so if it remembers its previous sapience, it’s not a zombie. But zombies aren’t real, which makes it difficult to define them precisely.

No. Jesus had his intellect and personality intact, which zombies do not.

NB: I’m taking the Gospels as gospel, here. I do not think the man himself rose from the dead.

You may well be right and that’s why it’s vital not to be complacent. Donate, volunteer, vote. Get out there and make a Harris win happen!

Further thoughts on this:

Criticising the Democrats as merely a type of Republican has other downsides: it effectively takes the Republicans as the standard type of politician, i.e., it turns every argument into an argument on their terms.

This also means that we don’t effectively criticise the Democrats, who are best criticised on their terms, not as merey lesser or mutated Republicans.

The “lesser” fascist is still a fascist, and fascists spend much more of their time attacking us than attacking each other, and on top of that even if they do attack each other it’s through attacking us.

But the Democrats aren’t fascists, lesser or otherwise. They’re not ‘the Republicans, but less so’; they’re a different organisation with different histories and philosophies, different people and different priorities. The Democrats, for example, are not promising to overthrow the constitution, but overthrow it a bit less than the Republicans; they’re not planning to overthrow it at all. Degrees of evil are not possible in this case, nor in many others. The Republicans are straight up wrong in a way that the Democrats just are not.

For these reasons, I don’t buy the framing of lesser evil at all. If I did buy that framing, I would still wholeheartedly vote for the lesser evil, because it would still be better than more evil, by definition. Even your definition of ‘the same amount of evil, but slower’, would be better.

Seems like a good choice from where I am (which is, granted, the other side of the ocean). Republicans want to depict Democrats as dangerous extremists, but Walz comes across as a friendly dad, so that just won’t stick. No one will care about his policy record, they’ll just sound weird talking about that stuff.

easy to profit by re selling

This was exactly the reason they shut down the 3DS marketplace: re-selling old games is more profitable via Switch Online than it was through the 3DS marketplace!

Real (I assume you mean proven) conspiracies start off as theories.

No, they don’t. Conspiracy theories are not ‘theories about conspiracies’. You are both misusing the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and wrongly describing the Tuskegee experiment as a conspiracy, which it never was. One of the people who originally called it out did so after reading about it in a published scientific paper! The pereptrators of that ‘experiment’ lied to the participants, but they were not otherwise secretive, otherwise they wouldn’t have been writing and publishing papers about it.

Fuck off

I’m not going to discuss this further with someone who cannot do so civilly.

The thing is that when Americans voted for the oldest Presidential candidate ever, with Harris as the VP, they were effectively saying they were okay with her as President. So, it’s safe to have some faith in Americans on this one!

Absolutely correct. And Trump is very beatable. The Democrats have loads of candidates who could beat him (including, IMO, Biden, but that’s in the past, now).

The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you’re right.

Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.

No, it isn’t. He’s a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.

RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.

OP has given us no info about the candidates they’re considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There’s no merit to encouraging RFK’s views, so Biden should be OP’s choice.

Please explain why it should be given to anyone else.

No. Vote Biden.

UPDATE: Vote Harris!*

If you can spare the time or money, volunteer and donate to the campaign in places they can actually win.

EDIT: Also, vote Democrat if there are any other elections going on at the same time. If Trump does win, the only chance of holding him to any kind of account is to have as many Democrats in positions of power as possible.

Sincerely, someone who can’t vote in your elections but still lives with the knock-on effects!

*EDIT 2: Absolute necro-editing to change this to say Vote Harris.

This is from the manifesto, published after both those articles. It’s the most up-to-date information we have on Labour’s plans.

They’re hoping to do that, too! A cash injection for the NHS and planning reform, so more houses can get built more quickly, are both in the plan for the first 100 days. I imagine the planning reform will be in the King’s Speech, but the NHS thing should be able to happen pretty quickly. If not, it will be in the first budget.

From the manifesto:

banning exploitative zero hours contracts; ending fire and rehire; and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal. We will strengthen the collective voice of workers, including through their trade unions, and create a Single Enforcement Body to ensure employment rights are upheld. These changes will improve the lives of working people across the entire UK.

Labour will also make sure the minimum wage is a genuine living wage. We will change the remit of the independent Low Pay Commission so for the first time it accounts for the cost of living. Labour will also remove the discriminatory age bands, so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage, delivering a pay rise to hundreds of thousands of workers across the UK.