So people who don’t vote actually dont endorse a candidate. This is a bit of an advanced piece of politics, but the way voting in the US works is you vote for a candidate and if you dont vote for someone, then they dont get your vote.
Your logic rests on an assumption that the democrats are owed your vote, which they aren’t. Had Harris won, then you wouldnt be saying the people who didnt vote passively endorsed her, but they would have done that just as much.
Those who don’t vote are in fact doing the opposite of endorsing anyone, they are signalling apathy with the system.
This thread is so old there is no longer an audience and you yourself are clearly beyond reason, so I will not waste my time writing more responses to you in this thread.
Worked quite a bit better than voting for genociders, considering how you have to pretend to give a shit, AIPAC has become radioactive, everyone keeps bringing me not voting for a genocider up as the reason the genocider lost - thus actually making a demand of the candidates.
Tell me, how has it worked voting for someone marginally less aesthetically shit than the other guy? Have conditions improved or are you now at a spot where not even genocide is a red line for your candidate?
So people who don’t vote actually dont endorse a candidate. This is a bit of an advanced piece of politics, but the way voting in the US works is you vote for a candidate and if you dont vote for someone, then they dont get your vote.
Your logic rests on an assumption that the democrats are owed your vote, which they aren’t. Had Harris won, then you wouldnt be saying the people who didnt vote passively endorsed her, but they would have done that just as much.
Those who don’t vote are in fact doing the opposite of endorsing anyone, they are signalling apathy with the system.
Removed by mod
Because the only political action one can take is vote, alright
You dont contribute to “lessening” evil by voting for a genocider.
The only one that matters in the current reality. Yes
Not really, no.
How did that third party vote work last time. Or the time before that. Or the time before that…etc etc etc.
Your fantasy vision is not reality. It is your fantasy. And your inability to see the difference is incredibly dangerous
This thread is so old there is no longer an audience and you yourself are clearly beyond reason, so I will not waste my time writing more responses to you in this thread.
Worked quite a bit better than voting for genociders, considering how you have to pretend to give a shit, AIPAC has become radioactive, everyone keeps bringing me not voting for a genocider up as the reason the genocider lost - thus actually making a demand of the candidates.
Tell me, how has it worked voting for someone marginally less aesthetically shit than the other guy? Have conditions improved or are you now at a spot where not even genocide is a red line for your candidate?