this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
-69 points (28.0% liked)
Memes
45550 readers
2052 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So your options are three people who have absolutely no chance of getting even a single electoral college vote, let alone a majority. Or in other words, to potentially feed the spoiler effect.
Being a single issue voter doesn't make sense at the best of times, but when it means you're voting for someone who has no chance of winning and potentially helping an even worse candidate get into office, it's even worse. If we had ranked-choice voting on a nationwide count, it wouldn't be as bad (and would be fine if after you'd voted for those candidates on the one issue you actually weighed in between the major candidates), but that's sadly not the world in which we live.
Go ahead and vote third party if you're in a state like Alabama where there's no chance of a difference regardless. But in a swing state, third party votes can and do add up to lives lost.
What's there to spoil?
Well purely on the genocide topic... While both major parties appear to be okay with one genocide, only one of them appears to want to do their own genocides within the US.
There's a difference between doing it against foreign brown people or American brown people?
Where on earth did you get that from my comment? If one genocide is bad, surely that same genocide (although arguably made more effective) plus an entirely separate, second genocide is worse?
You're saying the red line is at 2 Genocides not 1 Genocide?
You're very good at misrepresenting what people say. Are you saying that 2 genocides is not worse than 1 genocide?
No I'm finding out where you stop voting for Democrat.
Say Trump does 25 Genocides and the Democrats 24. What are you voting for?
I will always use my vote to the maximum effect of harm reduction. Why aren't you?
So you're voting third party?
I said harm reduction, not living in a fantasy world.
Are you reducing the harm or participating in it?
Any action, including inaction when you can act, is participating. I'm choosing the most effective way to minimise the harm.
Why are you trying to encourage people to take actions that have the result of making the situation worse? Why are you supporting more genocide?
You are the person voting for Genocide and actively supporting it. It seems you are projecting.
Repeating a debunked claim doesn't make it true.