No one raindrop is specifically responsible for a flood or drought, but all of them play a role.
not put the slightest amount of pressure on your political leadership.
You’ll be glad to know protest voting also does not put the slightest amount of pressure on political leadership. Not only are you not helping Palestinian children one iota, you’re also helping women and minorities to lose their rights.
What pressure? Neither voting third party nor abstaining applies pressure. Voting for one of the current parties actually accomplishes something, so yes.
Sure they do, which is why non-voters don’t matter to them. The most vocal abstainers find a new reason the Dems aren’t good enough every cycle, so pursuing them doesn’t help win. Taking a hard line on Israel might pick up a couple people, but it will alienate a much larger bloc, which also hurts their chances of winning.
They have zero incentive to try to get your vote. You’ll move the goalposts when they try, and they’ll drive more voters away in the process.
There are blocks of voters out there, right now, begging the dems to stop supporting genocide. These are people who would otherwise vote for the dems, but cannot in good conscience do it under these circumstances.
Yes, and those blocs are smaller than the blocs who support Israel. Trading a big number for a small number makes your total number smaller, this is simple arithmetic.
Those people are helping an alternative which is at least as bad for Palestine, and much worse for many other people. Those people should reevaluate exactly how good their conscience is, when they prioritize their personal feelings over the tangible suffering of others. I know some of those people personally, they are without exception spoiled kids who have never had to make messy, difficult decisions in no-win scenarios.
It’s just “personal feelings” lol. It’s like you just can’t admit that you are going to vote for terrible, bloodthirsty criminals. Maybe they’d be polling better with that slogan: “Harris/Waltz: probably less bloodthirsty than the other guy!”
One of the two is going to win. Yes, abstaining is elevating your ego over a difficult decision, who cares what the consequences are so long as you can say you didn’t do it. I assume you are also one of those spoiled children who has never had to make a difficult decision then? Keeping your nose clean is more important than mitigating damage?
No one raindrop is specifically responsible for a flood or drought, but all of them play a role.
You’ll be glad to know protest voting also does not put the slightest amount of pressure on political leadership. Not only are you not helping Palestinian children one iota, you’re also helping women and minorities to lose their rights.
So my raindrop of voting is important, but not your raindrop of pressure?
What pressure? Neither voting third party nor abstaining applies pressure. Voting for one of the current parties actually accomplishes something, so yes.
So parties don’t care about votes or winning?
Edit: or is this the meme about show up and vote every four years and pat yourself on the back?
Sure they do, which is why non-voters don’t matter to them. The most vocal abstainers find a new reason the Dems aren’t good enough every cycle, so pursuing them doesn’t help win. Taking a hard line on Israel might pick up a couple people, but it will alienate a much larger bloc, which also hurts their chances of winning.
They have zero incentive to try to get your vote. You’ll move the goalposts when they try, and they’ll drive more voters away in the process.
There are blocks of voters out there, right now, begging the dems to stop supporting genocide. These are people who would otherwise vote for the dems, but cannot in good conscience do it under these circumstances.
Yes, and those blocs are smaller than the blocs who support Israel. Trading a big number for a small number makes your total number smaller, this is simple arithmetic.
Those people are helping an alternative which is at least as bad for Palestine, and much worse for many other people. Those people should reevaluate exactly how good their conscience is, when they prioritize their personal feelings over the tangible suffering of others. I know some of those people personally, they are without exception spoiled kids who have never had to make messy, difficult decisions in no-win scenarios.
It’s just “personal feelings” lol. It’s like you just can’t admit that you are going to vote for terrible, bloodthirsty criminals. Maybe they’d be polling better with that slogan: “Harris/Waltz: probably less bloodthirsty than the other guy!”
One of the two is going to win. Yes, abstaining is elevating your ego over a difficult decision, who cares what the consequences are so long as you can say you didn’t do it. I assume you are also one of those spoiled children who has never had to make a difficult decision then? Keeping your nose clean is more important than mitigating damage?