If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies…it’s really not that difficult of a concept to get. Obviously, no genocide would be great, but if that literally isn’t an option, then just vote for the one that isn’t also actively trying to screw you’re over personally.
Look I’m not American so I don’t really have a horse in this race. But it seems to me, unless you have a revolution and burn the entire system to the ground and build it back up, it makes 0 sense to “boycott” the democrats because then you will just end up with right wing genocide instead of centerist genocide. (If you can even say democrats are Center, where I’m from they are still right wing!)
Of course not. But allowing their political rival (who also supports the thing you want to protest against) to win because you get apathetic and don’t vote is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of.
Dems like to point that this is the most important election ever. We can’t even vote our way out of a genocide and you’re questioning the apathy toward voter engagement. I’m looking around and seeing a vastly different political landscape than you and wondering what you are looking at.
I’m not advocating people decide not to vote, i’m defending the apathy most voters feel because democrats have given them ample reason to feel apathetic.
If banging the drum of genocidal complicity is me acting against my selfish desire to end the genocide, then I think banging the drum of ‘vote for biden or else’ is also acting against our collective desire to end the genocide.
In my opinion, we should all be banging the same ‘stop the genocide’ drum so that in November everyone can feel better about voting instead of having to do genocide math to figure out what to do.
If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies
This isn’t a math equation, it’s a negotiation between human beings. You’re saying that opposition to genocide is off the table because neither politician is offering it. But what happens if a sufficiently high number of voters say that genocide is off the table? In the short term, yes, it may mean a worse candidate wins. But if your goal is to stop genocide then it’s necessary to create that impasse and maintain it until the other side caves. The fact is that we have something they apparently want, and there’s no reason to hand over our votes if they open with the complete non-starter of supporting genocide.
If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies…it’s really not that difficult of a concept to get. Obviously, no genocide would be great, but if that literally isn’t an option, then just vote for the one that isn’t also actively trying to screw you’re over personally.
Look I’m not American so I don’t really have a horse in this race. But it seems to me, unless you have a revolution and burn the entire system to the ground and build it back up, it makes 0 sense to “boycott” the democrats because then you will just end up with right wing genocide instead of centerist genocide. (If you can even say democrats are Center, where I’m from they are still right wing!)
Does it make 0 sense to protest against the genocide to pressure them to stop?
Of course not. But allowing their political rival (who also supports the thing you want to protest against) to win because you get apathetic and don’t vote is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of.
Dems like to point that this is the most important election ever. We can’t even vote our way out of a genocide and you’re questioning the apathy toward voter engagement. I’m looking around and seeing a vastly different political landscape than you and wondering what you are looking at.
They have a two party system, if both of those parties support genocide then what other options are there except a revolution?
I’m not advocating people decide not to vote, i’m defending the apathy most voters feel because democrats have given them ample reason to feel apathetic.
If banging the drum of genocidal complicity is me acting against my selfish desire to end the genocide, then I think banging the drum of ‘vote for biden or else’ is also acting against our collective desire to end the genocide.
In my opinion, we should all be banging the same ‘stop the genocide’ drum so that in November everyone can feel better about voting instead of having to do genocide math to figure out what to do.
This isn’t a math equation, it’s a negotiation between human beings. You’re saying that opposition to genocide is off the table because neither politician is offering it. But what happens if a sufficiently high number of voters say that genocide is off the table? In the short term, yes, it may mean a worse candidate wins. But if your goal is to stop genocide then it’s necessary to create that impasse and maintain it until the other side caves. The fact is that we have something they apparently want, and there’s no reason to hand over our votes if they open with the complete non-starter of supporting genocide.