i mean to vote for someone who won’t support the genocide, but i wouldn’t fault anyone for looking at all the candidates and deciding none of them deserve to have the office.
this is ad hominem. what i’m saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don’t know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.
this statement is pure sophistry. it’s disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.
It’s not ad hominem. I’m not saying you’re wrong because this is your first election, I’m saying I can tell this is your first election because voting third party is incredibly naive. If this isn’t your first election, then you should know better.
Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don’t get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don’t get to tell me how to vote.
I can absolutely tell you how to vote, and you can absolutely ignore me. But next year, if Trump wins, it will be your fault. Just like it’s my fault that so many women don’t have access to basic medical care because I didn’t want Clinton in office. The country and the world will be worse if we let Trump win, and there is exactly one legal way that we can work against Trump winning.
If there are 10 people including you and the majority chooses who gets to be president and the vote ends up as 5 for Biden (including you) and 5 for Trump. Then the vote gets recast and the only thing that changes is that you decided not to vote for Biden, it would be 5/4 for Trump and the person responsible for electing Trump would be everyone who voted for him and you. If you had voted against Trump instead of abstaining, he would not have become president.
That’s a very basic concept and it’s clear that it extrapolates to the actual election.
How’d that work out for Nader in 2000 when he didn’t even get to 3%? Was it worth it, when nearly 100k people voted for him in Florida, and Gore lost to Bush by a margin of only 537 votes? Would the environmentalists who supported Nader be more appreciative of Bush’s outcome than they would have been if Gores?
Third parties are great. We absolutely need them. But they cannot and will not ever get a foothold starting at the top of the ballot. Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
It shouldn’t have even been a question in the first place. 100k people thought Gore wasn’t good enough for them, and as a result, they all got us Bush.
Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
if you think that, you should put energy toward that. but I don’t and won’t.
Nobody running for president, ever, has deserved the office. I sincerely believe, as Douglas Adams so eloquently put, that “those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.”
I can’t think of any point in recent history where the choice is of who is deserving for office. The choice is, and has always been, who is the least undeserving of office (or the spoiler candidate). This year, I think it’s pretty obvious who is least undeserving of office.
The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.
![Accelerationist [RULE]](https://files.catbox.moe/052f42.jpeg){kind=link}
i mean to vote for someone who won’t support the genocide, but i wouldn’t fault anyone for looking at all the candidates and deciding none of them deserve to have the office.
Removed by mod
this is ad hominem. what i’m saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don’t know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.
this statement is pure sophistry. it’s disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.
It’s not ad hominem. I’m not saying you’re wrong because this is your first election, I’m saying I can tell this is your first election because voting third party is incredibly naive. If this isn’t your first election, then you should know better.
it is. you’re attacking me instead of what i said.
Removed by mod
my identity has nothing to do with what I’m saying. it’s an ad hominem and you should be ashamed.
Removed by mod
instead of being defensive, just apologize and do better
i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don’t get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don’t get to tell me how to vote.
I can absolutely tell you how to vote, and you can absolutely ignore me. But next year, if Trump wins, it will be your fault. Just like it’s my fault that so many women don’t have access to basic medical care because I didn’t want Clinton in office. The country and the world will be worse if we let Trump win, and there is exactly one legal way that we can work against Trump winning.
the only people responsible for electing trump are those who vote for him. i’m not doing that, so it can’t be my fault.
If there are 10 people including you and the majority chooses who gets to be president and the vote ends up as 5 for Biden (including you) and 5 for Trump. Then the vote gets recast and the only thing that changes is that you decided not to vote for Biden, it would be 5/4 for Trump and the person responsible for electing Trump would be everyone who voted for him and you. If you had voted against Trump instead of abstaining, he would not have become president.
That’s a very basic concept and it’s clear that it extrapolates to the actual election.
voting for a bad person is bad.
Voting for a bad person to prevent a horrible person from winning is good.
not according to kant.
Removed by mod
it’s not a videogame, and I am not voting for Biden.
Removed by mod
if all you have is attacks on my identity, please block me, too
no one proposed that
The. What is the goal? To get to the magical 5%?
How’d that work out for Nader in 2000 when he didn’t even get to 3%? Was it worth it, when nearly 100k people voted for him in Florida, and Gore lost to Bush by a margin of only 537 votes? Would the environmentalists who supported Nader be more appreciative of Bush’s outcome than they would have been if Gores?
Third parties are great. We absolutely need them. But they cannot and will not ever get a foothold starting at the top of the ballot. Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.
gore didn’t lose that election
It shouldn’t have even been a question in the first place. 100k people thought Gore wasn’t good enough for them, and as a result, they all got us Bush.
the supreme Court got us bush. the military industrial complex got us bush.
Right wingers probably said this same shit when Biden got elected
Nah they just say he didn’t.
if you think that, you should put energy toward that. but I don’t and won’t.
deleted by creator
Nobody running for president, ever, has deserved the office. I sincerely believe, as Douglas Adams so eloquently put, that “those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.”
I can’t think of any point in recent history where the choice is of who is deserving for office. The choice is, and has always been, who is the least undeserving of office (or the spoiler candidate). This year, I think it’s pretty obvious who is least undeserving of office.
The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.
Removed by mod
Adlai Stevenson
maybe for you. I don’t vote for someone unless I want them to win.