Tell them that they should have chosen between the person that’s killing their relatives, and the person who’ll do it even more.
Um… yes? Harm reduction is a completely valid basis for making a voting decision and a completely valid reason to vote for one candidate vs. another.
Making no choice is the exact same as making the worst possible choice. Not participating is the exact same as deciding that you don’t care about the outcome. If this is your choice, then everyone else is completely justified in asking you why you didn’t do more to stop it, to make it better, to keep it from getting worse.
Alright, if you’re so sold on making the voter out to be at fault, then be my guest. Tell someone grieving the death of their relative as a Democratic party member that “hey, we only allowed one of them to die, they’ll have two of them die”.
The question is, what are you doing to make a difference there? Are you going out and protesting, are you actively seeking out local politicians?
You’re obviously passionate about the innocent people being hurt and killed, so I bet you are, but you could keep doing that while voting for the “lesser evil”. You could have cast your vote for Harris and then on the same day gotten right back to protesting against her policy on the war.
You have two parties that are bad, but one is obviously worse. Why not try to avoid the worst option, so your personal efforts are more effective?
It’s like trying to run a marathon and by abstaining to vote you get both your legs cut off instead of only one, because you fundamentally disagree with people getting their legs cut off. That’s a totally sensible stance, but getting to keep a leg still makes it easier to keep running and there is no secret third option where you get to keep both.
I’ve been out protesting, there’s been weekly ones here that I attend.
A lot of these people that were disenfranchised by the Democrats ended up voting for Cornel West or Jill Stein instead. I already know what people are going to say, something something wasted vote, but I’m really sick of that entire argument because all it does is delegitimize third parties and keeps this status quo of “lesser evil”.
If this entire notion that you have to vote for one or two parties is going to keep going on as it is, then I’ll gladly point to the senate election in Nebraska where an independent aligned with the Forward and Reform parties only lost to the Republican by about 6%. Do I agree with Osborn or the Forward or Reform parties, not fully, especially with how interesting a candidate Osborn was, but the fact that he gave such competition in a traditionally safe Republican riding shows that voting for other candidates is NOT wasting your vote.
It’s interesting to see how many liberals assume that I didn’t vote when I say that giving people a choice between two evils isn’t a good way to build support.
It’s especially interesting in this context, like they think people with direct connections are apparently just supposed to shut up and obey, or be above emotional responses.
Um… yes? Harm reduction is a completely valid basis for making a voting decision and a completely valid reason to vote for one candidate vs. another.
Making no choice is the exact same as making the worst possible choice. Not participating is the exact same as deciding that you don’t care about the outcome. If this is your choice, then everyone else is completely justified in asking you why you didn’t do more to stop it, to make it better, to keep it from getting worse.
Alright, if you’re so sold on making the voter out to be at fault, then be my guest. Tell someone grieving the death of their relative as a Democratic party member that “hey, we only allowed one of them to die, they’ll have two of them die”.
See if they’re not insulted at that notion.
The question is, what are you doing to make a difference there? Are you going out and protesting, are you actively seeking out local politicians?
You’re obviously passionate about the innocent people being hurt and killed, so I bet you are, but you could keep doing that while voting for the “lesser evil”. You could have cast your vote for Harris and then on the same day gotten right back to protesting against her policy on the war.
You have two parties that are bad, but one is obviously worse. Why not try to avoid the worst option, so your personal efforts are more effective?
It’s like trying to run a marathon and by abstaining to vote you get both your legs cut off instead of only one, because you fundamentally disagree with people getting their legs cut off. That’s a totally sensible stance, but getting to keep a leg still makes it easier to keep running and there is no secret third option where you get to keep both.
I’ve been out protesting, there’s been weekly ones here that I attend.
A lot of these people that were disenfranchised by the Democrats ended up voting for Cornel West or Jill Stein instead. I already know what people are going to say, something something wasted vote, but I’m really sick of that entire argument because all it does is delegitimize third parties and keeps this status quo of “lesser evil”.
If this entire notion that you have to vote for one or two parties is going to keep going on as it is, then I’ll gladly point to the senate election in Nebraska where an independent aligned with the Forward and Reform parties only lost to the Republican by about 6%. Do I agree with Osborn or the Forward or Reform parties, not fully, especially with how interesting a candidate Osborn was, but the fact that he gave such competition in a traditionally safe Republican riding shows that voting for other candidates is NOT wasting your vote.
“Voters just need to accept that their people are being genocided” is the most shitlib thing I’ve ever heard.
Congrats you saved Gaza.
It’s interesting to see how many liberals assume that I didn’t vote when I say that giving people a choice between two evils isn’t a good way to build support.
It’s especially interesting in this context, like they think people with direct connections are apparently just supposed to shut up and obey, or be above emotional responses.