• hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sure, but if you can and don’t vote for Biden it means you’re at least ok with Trump.

      • hperrin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You have two options:

        • 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.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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

              • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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.

                  • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    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.

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            But then if Trump wins because you didn’t vote for either, then you’re ok with Genocide+ rather than Genocide light. Meaning you have to vote for the lesser of the two evils if no matter what you do the majority are voting for the only two who are likely to win.

            You’re either incredibly stupid, a troll, or are being obstinate on purpose.

            • krzschlss@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Genocide light? Seriously?!? If the other guy is stupid, you are stupid+

              There is no democracy if you are supporting genocide. There is no election worth voting on if the outcome is same fucking fascist, just with different colored flags. And don’t give me the lie how you’re gonna do something about a ‘genocide light’ if your guy is elected. Fuck off

              This whole country needs to stop sucking Kissinger’s dick and change this bloodthirsty, greedy fascist system.

                • krzschlss@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Ask the people in Gaza what they think about “Roe got overturned”.

                  After all said and nothing done, we are paying for those bullets that murder their children by accepting and even promoting a system that gives us braindead mouthpieces for weapon manufacturers to vote for.