Yes. But realistically, “other” has a near zero chance of actually happening. You can vote third party if your conscious is really begging you to do that, but you need to understand that it’s WAY more nuanced than that - 99% of the voting population will be voting either red or blue, whether you like it or not.
So how about instead of throwing your vote away to the 1% with the near zero chance of winning, vote blue to prevent trump from taking over the situation and resulting in many, many more people being killed?
You’d rather take the moral high ground on something that literally has two outcomes, A “genocide” or B “more genocide” by choosing C which isn’t even an option and reduces the likelihood of A and increases the likelihood of B. So really that makes A the moral option, despite you calling it “enabling a genocide”, because otherwise you are performing a real action to make B more likely.
TL;DR, when trump wins because you and a bunch of self-righteous morons decide to vote third party in protest, YOU are actually at fault for the genocide worsening and the death of many more people.
I don’t think I have to get into the details of how the party system in the US works. You are obviously being obtuse because it’s clear that I am saying that C isn’t a real option, despite it being on the ballot. I’m not going to repeat myself, I’ve already made my point, and you appear to have no rebuttals. Find somewhere else to be an idiot.
If you don’t want the genocide to get 100 times worse, you should be voting for Harris. There is really no other option.
So my choices are genocide or more genocide? I’ll take “other”.
Imagine thinking voting for someone enabling a genocide is the moral option.
Yes. But realistically, “other” has a near zero chance of actually happening. You can vote third party if your conscious is really begging you to do that, but you need to understand that it’s WAY more nuanced than that - 99% of the voting population will be voting either red or blue, whether you like it or not.
So how about instead of throwing your vote away to the 1% with the near zero chance of winning, vote blue to prevent trump from taking over the situation and resulting in many, many more people being killed?
You’d rather take the moral high ground on something that literally has two outcomes, A “genocide” or B “more genocide” by choosing C which isn’t even an option and reduces the likelihood of A and increases the likelihood of B. So really that makes A the moral option, despite you calling it “enabling a genocide”, because otherwise you are performing a real action to make B more likely.
TL;DR, when trump wins because you and a bunch of self-righteous morons decide to vote third party in protest, YOU are actually at fault for the genocide worsening and the death of many more people.
Then why can I vote for it?
“Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed”.
I don’t think I have to get into the details of how the party system in the US works. You are obviously being obtuse because it’s clear that I am saying that C isn’t a real option, despite it being on the ballot. I’m not going to repeat myself, I’ve already made my point, and you appear to have no rebuttals. Find somewhere else to be an idiot.