“If I can’t have zero genocide then I don’t care to vote against the candidate that is very likely to be even worse.”
Especially with only two candidates with a chance of winning, a vote doesn’t mean unconditional support for everything that candidate wants. Sucks, but if you want to make your wishes known more specifically, you have to do more than just vote (if even that) and complain on the internet.
The unfortunate thing is we can’t have zero genocide. I just don’t want to be complicit in supporting it. I didn’t create this situation or these choices, I’m just responding to them.
Not voting would make you complicit in making it worse if Trump wins. Doing nothing is still a move.
The genocide is going to happen either way, as both candidates are in favor of it. The only choice I have in the matter is whether to to support those candidates with my vote or not. I am complicit by virtue of birthplace, that doesn’t mean I have to actively support it by helping the lesser evil further their political goals.
They voted against both, dont be mad your candidate was so shit she couldnt clear a ‘dont genocide’ hurdle from a voter. Thats not either your faults or problems its Harris’ problem.
The current system (or voter inertia) doesn’t allow you to vote against both. One of them will win, your only decision is which one you want (or despise less). If your vote doesn’t threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you’re voting for the winner.
The current system (or voter inertia) doesn’t allow you to vote against both.
false premise.
One of them will win,
Yes.
your only decision is which one you want (or despise less).
false conclusion.
If your vote doesn’t threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you’re voting for the winner.
Man, you’re a mental pretzel. please re-read your statement a few times. think really hard on what you just said. come back when you realize how that statement works both ways and is beautiful nonsense.
