When folks start winding up in camps,I hope you’ll take comfort in the thought of “I didn’t do anything to stop it, so it’s not my fault!”
If, 30 years from now, the choice is between a democrat who wants 5 genocides and a republican who wants 10, will you still cling to American electoralism as hard as you are now? Will you still be militantly democrat?
This logic isn’t sustainable.
The correct answer for genuine supporters of Harm Reduction via electoralism is usually yes, as that’s the logic of electoralism. Anything else is to admit you simply have a different “no return” threshold from others.
The fact of the matter is that you either stick to your guns about believing in electoralism, and no matter what vote for the lesser evil among the 2 largest candiates, or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re picking where you draw your personal line in the sand.
For some people, genocide at all is a line, domestic or foreign. For others, foreign is fine, domestic is not.
If trump wins, he voted for trump. That is how spoiler votes and non-voting works in our system.
The people with his absurd mentality are quitters. If the worst comes to pass, and the world suffers harshly for it, I trust history will remember his ilk in the exact same vein as MAGA.
The people with his absurd mentality are quitters.
I’m sorry, is supporting Biden supposed to be a test of endurance?
That’s pretty fucked up.
Endure, maintain the crappy status quo, try as we might to bring about change strikes me as better than Give up and bring about the worst timeline possible.
Also, I support stopping p2025, not Biden directly. At most it is supporting those around him.
I’m not giving up. I’m throwing my efforts behind other options.
Your “other option” is going into a Burger King and demanding spaghetti.
Our trash-tier system only supports two parties. If you would normally vote blue (caring about others and being anti-genocide tells me you would be more left than right) and don’t do so this time, your lack of a blue vote means red needs one less to win. This functionally means you would be voting red. Your spoiler-vote protest would actually mean something in ranked-choice or other systems, but we don’t have that, so you are just voting red, but with more steps.
I am all for any other candidate, to be fair, but the whole non-voting or spoiler-votingis a different thing entirely.
This functionally means you would be voting red. Your spoiler-vote protest
It’s not a protest vote. I want the Greens to win. And if everyone voted Green, then the Greens would win.
Maybe you’re preventing the Greens from winning by voting Blue.
Ok, so it is just a spoiler vote. The greens don’t have a chance and never have. Sorry, it is still real world vs pipedream. This is where ranked choice would come in. People could vote green with blue as a second choice. When green inevitably loses, then your votes would go blue instead of red, like they will now.
A full swap from blue to green by the entire party is a prisoners dilemma AT BEST.
I still heap a large amount of blame on the bernie bros for 2016.
As much as I wanted Bernie, same.
