I’m sorry, I don’t have a bomber. That is not a choice I have. I also am not a member of the International Court of Justice nor am I an attorney or a UN representative. I don’t really have any power to enforce the Geneva convention. By the way you’re speaking it appears you do and you should use that power instead of telling others they aren’t doing it.

What does boycotting the election do that is any different than if I just didn’t exist? If they can just ignore me, then what effect does that have that forces them to change? It would appear effectively being non-existent is the cowardly option.

You speak a big game, but you don’t actually play it. Its easy to say something isn’t enough, but what actually would be? I can always point to a flaw. A coward would say “I’m just not going to do anything.” Someone who actually cares will accept that they have a moral responsibility to do what they can to achieve the best outcome, even if that outcome isn’t perfect and still has massive moral flaws, because the alternative would only be worse.

Being cowardly and letting the worst option come to fruition is true moral degeneracy. The Palestinians that die from US support ramping up will be on everyone’s hands, and especially those who chose it or didn’t try to prevent it, including those from outside trying to make other do so.

And as you smile smugly to yourself about your moral superiority for choosing philosophy over the unfortunate situation that is reality, women die due to lack of reasonable healthcare, minorities and those deemed “deviant” by fundamentalists are oppressed, and the genocide in Palestine is ramped up and overtly supported by American interests because the right doesn’t do this kind of philosophical masturbation and thus handily wins the election.

Look, I want to see the end of the binary too, but only an ignorant person thinks you can win a race by being dropped off at the finish line and walking 2 steps. The end of the binary will not come from a surprise upset Presidential election out of nowhere. It just won’t. Not today, not ever. If you actually give a shit about making a change and not just feeling above it all personally, you’d be out on the streets in non election years working to legitimize third party candidates in viable lower and local races where they can win and affect change outside the party system. And if you’re somewhere where that has already happened, you’d be working with them to extend their reach, pushing their influence further. Or you’d be running locally as a third-party candidate yourself.

And if you are already doing that, first off thank you so much, but secondly, then you must understand what a difficult uphill battle the fight is and more importantly you must understand you can’t just skip ahead to the finish line.

You mention that voting is not the only way to change things for good and you are absolutely right. Hell, I’d say it’s not even one of the primary ways. But what voting is is one of the highest return on investment ways of effecting change; the amount of effect it takes to vote is beyond nominal, practically insignificant, yet the consequences have significant real world impact. Not smartly utilizing your vote is like being hungry in a cabin in the woods and taking a knife out hunt a wild boar for food when there is a literal ham sandwich in a ziploc bag in the fridge waiting for you.

Sure, every voter in the country could suddenly and radically change their minds about who to vote for, but we both know that isn’t going to happen, because it’s never happened. The only time that a third party has ever upset an established party is when the Republicans threw out the Whigs before the American Civil War. They did that through years of lead-up and messaging, along with a growing emancipation movement. You’re not changing anyone’s minds that radically this close to an election.

Believe it or not, I don’t spend most of my day voting or responding to internet comments.

Nobody asks you to fix America, they asked you what choice you would make.

Here are the options:
-You can vote for a candidate that represents 10,000 people dying

-You can vote for a candidate that represents 5,000 people dying

-You can abstain and guarantee that the candidate that represents 10,000 people dying wins.

These are your options. There are no other options. So maybe you value your own personal moral integrity more than the lives of 5,000 people, but any reasonable person will see that the second option is the only viable choice if you actually want to be decent.

edit: formating

That’s exactly the problem, no one can force Netanyahu to do anything. He’s complety off his rocker. He’s doing everything to stay in power, because the moment he’s not, the courts will go after him. That’s why he’s trying to appease both those pushing for peace (Yes, I actually mean Biden here) and the warmongers (Israeli right wingers). Notice how he hasn’t gotten all the hostages back? That’s on purpose. The longer the war goes on, the better for him. Now, who do you rather want in the White House next year? A feeble old man who will go along with everything Bibi says? Or an experienced prosecutor who can put her foot down?

I’m sorry for your friends. They need to leave, now. If war came to my doorstep, that’s what I would do.

I’ve done so, Peter Welch is solidly against genocide and Bernie Sanders is trying congressional wizardry to try and cut off arms shipments.

You okay?

People here are not in charge of the Israeli government you know.

Or you meant the Russo Ukrainian war? Well then I sure hope Kamala wins too.

What about the Uyghurs? Shal we vote thirdparty so donald can give a full go to China there too?

Lol. What a lot of effort it must be to project your preconceptions on some rando on the internet. How do you know I don’t give a shit? That seeing these things doesn’t hurt me to my core? What do you want me to do, go out and start murdering politicians? Sit down and think for a few minutes before writing your next comment.

You sound upset, is everything okay?

Then you should have just opened with calling her a murderer instead of your rather coy question about the courthouse, as if somehow that event would have been omitted when it’s a rather famous part of her history.