wanderer

Yes, he was a white supremacist that opposed slavery and his opponent was a white supremacist that supported slavery. He was still a white supremacist.

Lincoln in 1858, from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

They were not based.

Can you provide an example? I checked online stores and everything labeled American cheese was processed cheese.

American cheese existed before WWII.

Processed American cheese was invented in the 1910s by James L. Kraft, the founder of Kraft Foods Inc., who obtained a patent for his manufacturing process in 1916.

Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives their neighbor and says, “It was a prank bro” Proverbs 26:18-19

OK, if you want to look at it that way, it’s still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.

Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don’t vote the candidates that you wouldn’t have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.

Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.

democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?

That’s a different argument than what I was making. “Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins.” related but not the same.

Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.

No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.

That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.

The Phoenicians founded a new city in North Africa and called it ‘New City’ (Qart Hadasht), we now call it Carthage. The Carthaginians founded a new city in Spain and called it ‘New City’ (Qart Hadasht). The Romans conquered both of these cities, and found that having cities with the same confusing so called the second one ‘New New City’ (Carthago Nova).