• @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    302 months ago

    Yeah, that’s cool, so am I - that’s not the only thing that’s on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as “Well, I’m not voting for anyone”, but this is very much a “If you aren’t voting against Trump, you’re voting for him, directly or indirectly” situation.

    It’s cool, though - I’m sure everyone will understand. You couldn’t do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue’s outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We’ll all overlook that.

    • Em Adespoton
      link
      fedilink
      132 months ago

      AKA:

      “Why are you hitting that screw with a hammer?”

      “I refuse to use a screwdriver; it takes too long and I’m morally opposed to patents that you get with screwdriver heads.”

      “You do know that your hammering is going to make a total mess of things, rIght?”

      “I don’t care; it’s the principled stance I’m willing to take to build this house.”

      • knightly the Sneptaur
        link
        fedilink
        02 months ago

        Claims to have a principled opposition to screwdriver head patents: buys screws anyway.

        Sounds like the Democrats to me. All “I’m the anti-genocide candidate!” while shipping cluster bombs to the middle east.

        • Em Adespoton
          link
          fedilink
          62 months ago

          It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.

          And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.

      • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        Given that, I expect you’ll be voting for the ‘less bad’ candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the ‘more bad’ candidate in winning, then?

        • @Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.