I asked what specifically you had an issue with, and gave three possibilities. Which one are you saying no to? This screams “evasion” that you just say “no” and then start in with a bunch of vague platitudes. You won’t even pin down what you’re saying. Speak up.
So, being that’s the reality we live in, I can determine that the situation is INFINITELY better off in the hands of one party than the other.
Genocide is not infinitely better than genocide. It is actually delusional to think that a political system comprised of two parties which have a near-total consensus on committing genocide are operating independently. You can frame this as a “tough choice adults have to make” as much as you want, but the fact that you have no coherent explanation about why this is happening shows you’re just playing games instead of facing reality.
I also voted for that party because I’m not a moron single issue voter and I know there’s a lot else at stake right here at home.
Again - genocide is not a “single issue”. It shows that on the spectrum of morality, a politician is at absolute zero. Pure evil. It negates every other stance they supposedly have, because it proves that they value absolutely nothing except their own benefit. If you can sacrifice millions of humans, you are an absolute devil. If you vote for someone like that, no much how much anguish you supposedly subject yourself to while you’re doing it, you’re a fool and a useful idiot at best, and as evil as the politician at worst. And back to the point of “the parties are not actually independent”, this speaks only to you failing to understand that voting for either of these parties sacrifices everything that’s at stake. It is the public shooting itself in the foot and thinking they’re being strategic.
I asked what specifically you had an issue with, and gave three possibilities. Which one are you saying no to?
I said “no” because I mean NO to all three. I’m not typing it 3 times for you. You are not important enough to me to say no to each of your questions. You get one no, because I utterly disagree with you, in a sweeping manner.
Genocide is not infinitely better than genocide.
Sure it is, when the alternative is a WORSE genocide. Are you so simple that you can’t grasp that death and lots more death are different things with different degrees of severity? You keep saying hefty words like “evasion” and “delusional”, but you’re an individual that can’t tell the difference between a person that expresses their disapproval directly to the person committing a horrific act and a person that says “full steam ahead” to that person. So I’m going to use a hefty word on you. Ignorant.
Again - genocide is not a “single issue”.
Yes, it actually, literally is.
It shows that on the spectrum of morality, a politician is at absolute zero.
Yes. The world is black and white. There are no shades of grey. To simpletons.
If war crimes, or what you perceive to be war crimes, remove a candidate from contention for you, then you’d never vote for another president, ever. Very mature stance you’ve taken there.
If you vote for someone like that, no much how much anguish you supposedly subject yourself to while you’re doing it, you’re a fool and a useful idiot at best
Or you’re simply an adult trying to make sure the significantly worse option doesn’t become reality.
But you, you are simply someone sitting on the fence, dishing out morality from what you believe is your high horse.
Because your alternative to voting for 2 “genociders” is to either not vote or vote 3rd party, which are unquestionably stupid things to do. Why? Because not voting is profoundly stupid. And voting for a 3rd party that CANNOT win, is also profoundly stupid. The 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. A 3rd party CAN NOT WIN.
So excuse me if I’m tired of listening to someone pretending they’re a moral authority while contributing absolutely nothing to the situation, at all.
![An independent voter explains why they chose a moronic, oligarcho-fascist demagogue over Joe Biden (c. November 2020) [Day 58]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a38a8c8d-3e86-4981-a58d-48c94062495e.png){kind=link}
I asked what specifically you had an issue with, and gave three possibilities. Which one are you saying no to? This screams “evasion” that you just say “no” and then start in with a bunch of vague platitudes. You won’t even pin down what you’re saying. Speak up.
Genocide is not infinitely better than genocide. It is actually delusional to think that a political system comprised of two parties which have a near-total consensus on committing genocide are operating independently. You can frame this as a “tough choice adults have to make” as much as you want, but the fact that you have no coherent explanation about why this is happening shows you’re just playing games instead of facing reality.
Again - genocide is not a “single issue”. It shows that on the spectrum of morality, a politician is at absolute zero. Pure evil. It negates every other stance they supposedly have, because it proves that they value absolutely nothing except their own benefit. If you can sacrifice millions of humans, you are an absolute devil. If you vote for someone like that, no much how much anguish you supposedly subject yourself to while you’re doing it, you’re a fool and a useful idiot at best, and as evil as the politician at worst. And back to the point of “the parties are not actually independent”, this speaks only to you failing to understand that voting for either of these parties sacrifices everything that’s at stake. It is the public shooting itself in the foot and thinking they’re being strategic.
I said “no” because I mean NO to all three. I’m not typing it 3 times for you. You are not important enough to me to say no to each of your questions. You get one no, because I utterly disagree with you, in a sweeping manner.
Sure it is, when the alternative is a WORSE genocide. Are you so simple that you can’t grasp that death and lots more death are different things with different degrees of severity? You keep saying hefty words like “evasion” and “delusional”, but you’re an individual that can’t tell the difference between a person that expresses their disapproval directly to the person committing a horrific act and a person that says “full steam ahead” to that person. So I’m going to use a hefty word on you. Ignorant.
Yes, it actually, literally is.
Yes. The world is black and white. There are no shades of grey. To simpletons.
If war crimes, or what you perceive to be war crimes, remove a candidate from contention for you, then you’d never vote for another president, ever. Very mature stance you’ve taken there.
Or you’re simply an adult trying to make sure the significantly worse option doesn’t become reality.
But you, you are simply someone sitting on the fence, dishing out morality from what you believe is your high horse.
Because your alternative to voting for 2 “genociders” is to either not vote or vote 3rd party, which are unquestionably stupid things to do. Why? Because not voting is profoundly stupid. And voting for a 3rd party that CANNOT win, is also profoundly stupid. The 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. A 3rd party CAN NOT WIN.
So excuse me if I’m tired of listening to someone pretending they’re a moral authority while contributing absolutely nothing to the situation, at all.