nickwitha_k

Ah yes. Like LGBTQ+ people?

You think that the guy who looks up to a dictator that throws people that he is upset at out of windows, who has also been granted immunity to any reprecussions for illegal acts by the Supreme Court, is going to care if Powell doesn't want to do what he wants to?

Best to come to terms with what people non-voted for so that you're not taken by surprise. Laws don't mean shit for him anymore and he's not leaving the kingship that he's been handed on a silver platter while he's still alive.

For a final time, this is still repeating the fallacy of Denying the Correlative. The only options available were Dems or GQP facists. There were no other options. Choosing to not vote or vote third party was a choice to not oppose facism. Full stop.

"Genocide" or "no genocide" were not options of any statistical possibility. The only possible outcomes were Dems, who at least made half-hearted statements of opposing, OR GQP fascists who want genocide to occur at a much larger and faster scale in more places and prevent anyone from removing them from power while openly stating their intent to oppress all LGBTQ+ people domestically and abroad (foreign aid will be contingent on oppression), women, non-christians, and political opponents.

Outcomes are factual, measurable things. Moral purity dick-measuring contests have no impact on reality or human suffering. Your moral purity means absolutely fuck all to those of us who have already lost people or have friends and family on suicide watch because of people too high on their own egos to care about how their choices impact others. I'm sure that it was extremely moral to hand over the entire government of a nuclear power to fascists on a silver platter, without even pretending to offer resistance. Hey, at least you can sure off your gargantuan morality-peen, right?

Why don't you or anyone using the "morality" excuse for not opposing fascism call up The Trevor Project and explain to them how it's really for the greater good that you chose to allow the election of those with intentions to murder and oppress those that they are trying to save? I'm sure they'll be overjoyed and applaud the size of your morality-peen.

You cannot morally justify voting for Harris unless you can justify her ongoing role in the genocide. No one else running for president came close to playing such a role and, of course, there's nothing immoral about abstaining.

Your reasoning is utterly bunk and, again, Denying the Correlative. The choices were D or R. Status quo and attempts to softly change 70 years of foreign policy was the Dems. Full-blown genocide of the Palestinian and Ukrainian peoples, ending democracy, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, minority rights, labor rights, and any action to combat climate change was the Reps. There were no other choices possible in the FPTP system. None.

We've seen that non-voters allowed rightward shifts in the Overton Window for half a century, rejecting every bit of statistical data that showed this to be the case. That's done now. Selfish desire to feel morally pure has permanently altered humanity's course for the worse, accelerating atrocities and climate collapse.

The choice was "try to reform the status quo" OR "drastically increase global human suffering and oppression of marginalized groups". The "genocide or not" was nothing but propaganda to help the far-right win so that they can play out their doomsday cult's fantasies.

I still have hope that we will have a democracy in 4 years.

This is what people, both libs and "teach the dems" non-voters don't seem to be getting: that's not how facism works. Even if it were the case, at minimum, the courts are captured for the rest of anyone currently living's life. That's done.

They never learn though.

And we're out of chances for them to do so.

Oh. That's alright then. The people who have already lost loved ones and the impending victims of fascism, like the Palestinian and Ukrainian peoples who are now destined to be wiped from the globe, will understand that you refused to do anything meaningful to prevent it because you value your own sense of moral purity more than other human beings. /s

No. Choosing to enable the greatest possible harm was not a moral choice.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

That's you. Great work.

That's the fallacy of Denying the Correlative. In the FPTP system, there were two choices and only two.

I surely will and there's no shame in it or any other expression of sorrow by a man, woman, or enbie. I'm afraid, however, that I have neither the patience, nor ability to give you empathy for those that are currently are and will soon be suffering and dying because of people who care more about their own moral purity than other human beings. If you're unable to reach that capacity on your own, maybe therapy would be a good option (many professionals offer sliding scales, so if you have a challenge with that, I'd be happy to try to help you find someone in your area that could help).

Are you going to walk the walk or just talk the talk like all of those that supported fascism with their non-voting to score "I'm a leftist, really" cred at the expense of all of the peoples that are now going to have genocide?

And non-voters don't get to have an opinion or seat at the adults table because they enabled fascism.

You're correct. The US third parties have never been acting in good faith, with few exceptions.