Logically, two things can be true: Biden could have caused “massive destruction” and still be substantially better than Trump.

Sure, it could be true. I just don't think it is. Lets ask the Palestinian kids with missing limbs if the damage that Biden caused was massive. Lets ask the dead Syrians if the damage he caused was massive. Lets ask the immigrants who were deported to torture prisons if the damage he caused was massive. I'm pretty confident that I know what they would say.

So just saying “Biden caused massive destruction” is not sufficient to prove your point.

Well luckily for me, I didn't just say that. I brought data-points and information to back up my claim.

All of the “destruction” points you brought up happened under Trump, as well, right?

Yes. So the fact that you think Trump doing those is "massive destruction", but Biden doing them isn't, shows your bias.

USAID cuts that will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths globally.

Fair enough

Secret police with arrest quotas terrorizing ordinary people.

The only difference is that they didn't have quotas. But the secret police existed and were active under Biden as well.

A war in Iran that is causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

We had "military activity" with Syria, and a genocide supported by Biden. Both which caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. But the Iran war affects you more visibly in an economic sense, so suddenly you care about it.

No one expected Biden to be some kind of radical leftist candidate who would enact sweeping leftist changes. But we expected less “fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc,” and that’s exactly what we got.

Uh, wut? No we didn't. We got mostly the same fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc. Also, the fact that you were OK with that as long as the Blue Team was doing it is pretty telling.

You might argue that voting for Biden perpetuates this system and that you want to “send a message” to the party.

I might argue that, but I didn't. I love how Libs always have to make up arguments that I never said to fight against, rather than address the points that I did make.

Well, that’s a convenient POV to hold when you’re not the one who is suffering the consequences when the system is controlled by the worse party. You’re not going to die from the USAID cuts. You’re not getting arrested by the secret police. You’re not at risk of being bombed. “Some of you will die, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take” kind of attitude, right?

From what I see, your POV is that you are willing to risk the lives of Palestinians, Syrians, immigrants in the US, anti-genocide activists, and other marginalized people because you aren't suffering the consequences when Biden was in control. You aren't going to starve to death. You aren't going to be genocided. You aren't going to have your limbs blown off. You aren't going to be sent to a torture prison. You got to go back to brunch, and stop pretending that you cared about them.

I think the reality is that you are exercising the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here.

What? How does that fallacy make sense in this context?

You want to believe that you’re the smartest person in the room and that you have some kind of secret knowledge about how “both parties are the same” that “liberals” haven’t discovered yet, and you revel in “blowing people’s minds” with your “radical” views. There’s a word for what you’re doing: edgelord. And you fully embody that spirit, bud.

No, I want to stop the US from bombing, torturing, raping, stealing, and causing massive destruction. Something that you don't seem to care about, as long as it doesn't effect you. Your the one trying to do a bunch of "akshully, Biden blew up less kids, so he's actually pretty cool!" rhetroric.

You are right about one thing though: Being against bombing, torturing, raping, stealing, and causing massive destruction is a radical view in the US, especially when considering the stances that Libs consistently take.