Ok with genocide. Otherwise relatively progressive. Has passed major important legislation.
Ok with genocide. Wants to be a dictator. Appointed half of the Supreme Court majority that took away women’s right to abortion. Will probably strip more rights if elected. Cut taxes on the wealthy and will probably do it again.
You can throw away your vote, but come inauguration, you will have a president who is ok with genocide.
This is a make-or-break moment – we must pressure the Democrats to change their position on Gaza before the elections in November. While we should all be doing absolutely everything we can to stop the genocide, the bare minimum right now is demanding that a presidential hopeful, in need of our votes, commits to ending US funds to Israel. It is not that complicated. source
A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
No, it means I’m not ok with genocide but you are.
You have two options:
You can throw away your vote, but come inauguration, you will have a president who is ok with genocide.
But I will not have voted for one of them. But you will have and the blood will be on your hands.
Not voting is a vote for Trump.
That’s not logical. So, if my choices are pizza or nuggies, and I choose neither. Then I chose nuggies? Make it make sense.
I may be intermittent fasting to lose weight, or rejecting imperialist capitalism.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s interesting that people assume that someone is not voting, or voting for third parties, just because they’re critical of Harris.
A tribe holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the tribe (Group C) says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
Seems like more from the other Groups should have voted with C, or C shouldn’t have been given the option to find a better source for food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Group C is not complicit for being honest.