None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.

I’ll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:

Premise one: Kamala’s policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump’s.

You’ve asserted without evidence that Kamala’s stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden’s established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump’s policy of providing even more unconditional resources.

Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.

You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.

Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election

You’ve also not refuted this in any way

Conclusion: Because Kamala’s policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.

Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.