You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.
In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren’t effectively contributing to said position.
Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.
“Our genocide guy is better” is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.
Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.
What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don’t want to be “in support of parties involved in committing genocide”?
To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.
Right. I really fucking hate this dude is sending weapons to fund a genocide. But do I want to not vote or let some asshole who is going to make Americans life harder get the most powerful position in the world? Absolutely the fuck not. No one should be having to make these decisions, but here we are.
What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don’t want to be “in support of parties involved in committing genocide”?
For instance when many people in Michigan voted uncommitted in the primary it scared the DNC into making some token concessions. The Democratic party could be a non genocide party, if people genuinely applied pressure. Instead people were falling over backwards to confirm, that the will vote for them no matter what. This way they effectively told the DNC to enact whatever policy is in favor of their donors, as the peoples choice does not matter.
I would argue, that this kind of thinking brought the Democratic party to be like this in the first place, and helped Trump win in 2016 by collecting everyone that is sick of establishment politics. Obviously Trump was lying about it, but the breeding ground was also laid by the Democrats establishment stomping out any glimpse of progressive politics.
That’s also a logical fallacy.
You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.
In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren’t effectively contributing to said position.
Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.
“Our genocide guy is better” is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.
Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.
What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don’t want to be “in support of parties involved in committing genocide”?
To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.
Right. I really fucking hate this dude is sending weapons to fund a genocide. But do I want to not vote or let some asshole who is going to make Americans life harder get the most powerful position in the world? Absolutely the fuck not. No one should be having to make these decisions, but here we are.
For instance when many people in Michigan voted uncommitted in the primary it scared the DNC into making some token concessions. The Democratic party could be a non genocide party, if people genuinely applied pressure. Instead people were falling over backwards to confirm, that the will vote for them no matter what. This way they effectively told the DNC to enact whatever policy is in favor of their donors, as the peoples choice does not matter.
I would argue, that this kind of thinking brought the Democratic party to be like this in the first place, and helped Trump win in 2016 by collecting everyone that is sick of establishment politics. Obviously Trump was lying about it, but the breeding ground was also laid by the Democrats establishment stomping out any glimpse of progressive politics.