Your assumption that a critique of Biden means support for Trump is infantile. Oh, and the Yemeni genocide by the Saudis started with Obama. My concern and vote isn't about who can win, it's about doing what's right. Focusing only on who can win is for losers.
I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm saying your "red line" point is infantile because it rules out both major candidates, thus you will throw your vote away, which helps the candidate you hate most to win. If your metric is genocide, tasteless as it is, you have to vote for whoever you think will help minimize the deaths by genocide in the future. "Red Lines" don't work if they don't differentiate between the candidates.
I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that's a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.
If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.
A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.
minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide
Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death
It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.
It is 100% within Biden's power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.
You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn't like).
If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it's a moot point.
then pick the person
Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.
You're just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.
You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it's not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.
Instead of focusing on the hyperbolic fantasy of less death, try no death.
That's exactly full circle to where we came from. No death is not on the ballot in an election for US president.
Thats a crock of shit. The only thing on the ballot is protecting the status quo, the status quo that enriches the wealthy, while the rest of us get fucked over and/or killed.
If you think that's a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called "The Lesser Evil", where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she'll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.
Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts -- he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.
It really isn't hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?
>which helps the candidate you hate most to win
when i voted for howie and biden won, does that mean that i hated biden the most? what kind of quantum emotion theory are you cooking up?
You are not the only person voting, you not voting for a major party candidate doesn't declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options, then voting for anyone else or failing to vote is a vote less for Biden, which is equivalent to a vote for Trump.
if not voting is voting for trump, then voting for trump would be like voting twice.
this is clearly absurd election misinformation.
non-voters are the biggest voting block in the country. there is no way what you are saying is true.
A person who would otherwise support Biden, voting for Trump instead, is indeed a two vote swing. That is just the math of it.
>you not voting for a major party candidate doesn’t declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
only a vote for a candidate helps them win
Ok so if all Biden voters stayed home, that wouldn't help Trump win?
no. only trump voters help him win
You're really trying to make a razor thin distinction without a difference then. So not voting for Biden is "taking part in the creation of a situation wherein Trump is more likely to win" or whatever you need to the wording to be.
If all Biden supporters boycott the election, Trump wins. If you're not disputing that fact then you're twiddling around with wording and not actually disagreeing.
>Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options
that is not a good assumption: I only vote for candidates if I want them to win.
The base assumption here is not that you would actually vote for either one, it's that when given only two choices, you prefer one or the other. The only way that doesn't hold is if you truly do not care between the two options and it's a coin flip. If that is true, then the 'person you hate most between the two' still benefits, but it's a coin flip which one it is so you don't care.
If you prefer Biden over Trump, you are helping Trump by not voting for Biden. And vice versa. Even if you would never vote for any major party candidate, that just means you are always helping the major party candidate you hate the most.
so I hated trump more than I hated hilary, and I hate biden more than I hate trump? is that the theory?
I mean...you tell me your political feelings. It's not about who won, it's just who you are helping.
If you hate Trump more than Hillary and you didn't vote for one of them in 2016, you helped Trump in 2016. If you hate Biden more than Trump and you didn't vote in 2020 then you helped Biden. But if you hate Trump more than Biden, then you helped Trump in 2020 even though he didn't win.
the only candidate helped by my vote is the candidate I vote for. you are spreading election misinformation.
You're the one talking about not voting or throwing your vote away.
voting for a candidate who I want to win is not throwing away a vote. such a claim is voter suppression.
I'm not telling you not to vote, I'm telling you the options you have. Help the major party candidate you like the best, or the major party candidate you like the least.
i expect to have more options on my ballot. this is more election misinformation.
Your assumption that a critique of Biden means support for Trump is infantile. Oh, and the Yemeni genocide by the Saudis started with Obama. My concern and vote isn't about who can win, it's about doing what's right. Focusing only on who can win is for losers.
I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm saying your "red line" point is infantile because it rules out both major candidates, thus you will throw your vote away, which helps the candidate you hate most to win. If your metric is genocide, tasteless as it is, you have to vote for whoever you think will help minimize the deaths by genocide in the future. "Red Lines" don't work if they don't differentiate between the candidates.
I hate them both equally. And there is no lesser evil, that's a thing white liberals tell themselves to ease their conscience for supporting people they know are doing harm, but not to them directly.
If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.
A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.
Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death
It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.
It is 100% within Biden's power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.
You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn't like).
If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it's a moot point.
Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.
You're just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.
You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it's not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.
Instead of focusing on the hyperbolic fantasy of less death, try no death.
That's exactly full circle to where we came from. No death is not on the ballot in an election for US president.
Thats a crock of shit. The only thing on the ballot is protecting the status quo, the status quo that enriches the wealthy, while the rest of us get fucked over and/or killed.
If you think that's a myth, you have a terribly myopic taste in fiction. The Witcher series has a great short story aptly called "The Lesser Evil", where Geralt refuses to do anything bad on the principle that evil is evil. A wizard wants Geralt to kill a girl because a prophecy says she'll destroy kingdoms, and he wants to examine the entrails. The girl says she was ostracized and raped because of the prophecy the wizard follows, and wants Geralt to lure out the wizard for her to kill.
Geralt chooses neither, and is then met with a problematic situation. The girl and her gang will confront the wizard outside his tower, and kill the townspeople ceaselessly until he turns himself into them. The wizard however is a selfish bastard and has no intent to do so. The town of innocent people will be massacred, and neither side wins. And so, Geralt acts -- he chooses the lesser evil, and kills the gang, and tries to defeat the girl without killing her, but she chooses to fight to the death. Geralt refuses to give the wizard the body, threatening to kill him in turn if he touches her, and the townspeople throw stones at him and call him a butcher.
It really isn't hard to see this play out in real life. Replace the girl and her gang with a terrorist group from a country destabilized by the West, and the wizard with a corrupt politician who helped destabilize the country but is a cornerstone of the community. What would you choose to do?
>which helps the candidate you hate most to win
when i voted for howie and biden won, does that mean that i hated biden the most? what kind of quantum emotion theory are you cooking up?
You are not the only person voting, you not voting for a major party candidate doesn't declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options, then voting for anyone else or failing to vote is a vote less for Biden, which is equivalent to a vote for Trump.
if not voting is voting for trump, then voting for trump would be like voting twice.
this is clearly absurd election misinformation.
non-voters are the biggest voting block in the country. there is no way what you are saying is true.
A person who would otherwise support Biden, voting for Trump instead, is indeed a two vote swing. That is just the math of it.
>you not voting for a major party candidate doesn’t declare the person you dislike most the victor, it just helps them win.
only a vote for a candidate helps them win
Ok so if all Biden voters stayed home, that wouldn't help Trump win?
no. only trump voters help him win
You're really trying to make a razor thin distinction without a difference then. So not voting for Biden is "taking part in the creation of a situation wherein Trump is more likely to win" or whatever you need to the wording to be.
If all Biden supporters boycott the election, Trump wins. If you're not disputing that fact then you're twiddling around with wording and not actually disagreeing.
>Assuming you would have voted for Biden if you only had the two major party options
that is not a good assumption: I only vote for candidates if I want them to win.
The base assumption here is not that you would actually vote for either one, it's that when given only two choices, you prefer one or the other. The only way that doesn't hold is if you truly do not care between the two options and it's a coin flip. If that is true, then the 'person you hate most between the two' still benefits, but it's a coin flip which one it is so you don't care.
If you prefer Biden over Trump, you are helping Trump by not voting for Biden. And vice versa. Even if you would never vote for any major party candidate, that just means you are always helping the major party candidate you hate the most.
so I hated trump more than I hated hilary, and I hate biden more than I hate trump? is that the theory?
I mean...you tell me your political feelings. It's not about who won, it's just who you are helping.
If you hate Trump more than Hillary and you didn't vote for one of them in 2016, you helped Trump in 2016. If you hate Biden more than Trump and you didn't vote in 2020 then you helped Biden. But if you hate Trump more than Biden, then you helped Trump in 2020 even though he didn't win.
the only candidate helped by my vote is the candidate I vote for. you are spreading election misinformation.
You're the one talking about not voting or throwing your vote away.
voting for a candidate who I want to win is not throwing away a vote. such a claim is voter suppression.
I'm not telling you not to vote, I'm telling you the options you have. Help the major party candidate you like the best, or the major party candidate you like the least.
i expect to have more options on my ballot. this is more election misinformation.