• @null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    There is no conceivable situation where I would vote for either.

    Since you refuse to engage, let’s rephrase:

    Which would be the better outcome, Trump winning, or Kamala winning?

    • OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      123 hours ago

      Kamala winning, at least in the short term, but it does set a bad precedent if it means the democrats learn they can support genocide and get away with it.

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          -223 hours ago

          I’m not a psychic, so it’s difficult to say, but I will answer Kamala since you are so insistent on unambiguous answers.

          • @null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            So in the short and long term, based on our best assessments, we agree the better outcome of this election is for Kamala to win over Trump*.

            Do you also agree that there is an (effectively) 0% chance of a third-party candidate winning this election? That come election night, the winner will either be Kamala or Trump?

                • OBJECTION!
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -423 hours ago

                  No. I don’t live in a swing state, but even if I did, I wouldn’t. However, I can respect their decision as long as they respect mine.

                  • @null@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    3
                    edit-2
                    23 hours ago

                    I’m not asking about you and your vote, I’m asking about the position and rhetoric you push around here.

                    If you agree that Kamala would be better than Trump short and long term, and that one of them will be president, then how can you, in good faith, advocate for people not to vote in a way that increases the odds of the better option and decreases the odds of the worse one?