No, it’s a still a binary choice in the end. Whatever people do before election day or after it, on election day their choices will be “Vote for the less bad genocide enabler” or “Vote in a way that ultimate helps the much worse genocide enabler gain power” (and that includes not voting).
None of which means that people should stop putting pressure on Biden’s government to end the genocide. Part of the argument for why Biden is the less bad choice is precisely that it is more likely that he can be affected by public pressure on this issue. So yes, absolutely, apply that pressure. But be careful how you do it, because the danger, as others have pointed out in this thread, is that once you create this mini-avalanche of “Genocide Joe” negative publicity around Biden, you won’t be able to stop it before November.
I don’t know where the line is there. It’s a very difficult path to tread correctly.
In the general it is indeed, unfortunately, a binary choice. If you could vote for Biden but do not, you have helped the explicit fascists. First past the post voting, babyyyyy
By that logic if I could vote for trump but do not, I have helped the democrats.
Of course, neither candidate is declared the winner by tallying up what third party votes or lack thereof ended up helping them, they’re declared the winner because of the votes cast explicitly for them.
Sure it’s a binary choice “in the end” but I have never been discussing “in the end”. I and OP are looking at the primaries. Now.
The primaries are an example of voters getting the opportunity to untie as many people from the less populous track as possible. Then, down the line, they get the choice to flip the switch or not.
Limiting your mindset to in the end statements is doomerism. I don’t disagree with any of your statements but you’re just looking at things from a perspective I don’t find altogether useful.
And what happens if, as a direct result of the way this campaign was conducted during the primaries, Biden ends up losing? (say, because the GOP somehow latch onto this Genocide Joe thing and turn into a Swiftboat that drags his whole campaign down just enough for Trump to squeak a win).
In that hypothetical scenario would you feel that the right choices were made?
See, no matter which way you come at this, in the end you’re still stuck in the trolley problem.
The point is, if you’re not considering these actions now in the context of what impact they might potentially have when you get to that in the end point, then you’re driving at night without the lights on.
That’s not me saying “Don’t do it.” That’s me saying “Think very carefully about how you do it.”
No, it’s a still a binary choice in the end. Whatever people do before election day or after it, on election day their choices will be “Vote for the less bad genocide enabler” or “Vote in a way that ultimate helps the much worse genocide enabler gain power” (and that includes not voting).
None of which means that people should stop putting pressure on Biden’s government to end the genocide. Part of the argument for why Biden is the less bad choice is precisely that it is more likely that he can be affected by public pressure on this issue. So yes, absolutely, apply that pressure. But be careful how you do it, because the danger, as others have pointed out in this thread, is that once you create this mini-avalanche of “Genocide Joe” negative publicity around Biden, you won’t be able to stop it before November.
I don’t know where the line is there. It’s a very difficult path to tread correctly.
It’s not a binary choice. I can vote for a third party in the general or not vote for any candidate who will continue the genocide.
In the general it is indeed, unfortunately, a binary choice. If you could vote for Biden but do not, you have helped the explicit fascists. First past the post voting, babyyyyy
By that logic if I could vote for trump but do not, I have helped the democrats.
Of course, neither candidate is declared the winner by tallying up what third party votes or lack thereof ended up helping them, they’re declared the winner because of the votes cast explicitly for them.
Aka “vote in a way that helps Trump.”
By that logic it’s a vote in a way that helps Biden as well and the two cancel out.
Not in a first past the post election.
That doesn’t make any sense.
I mean, there was an autocorrect mishap, but if you don’t know what first past the post means…
Sure it’s a binary choice “in the end” but I have never been discussing “in the end”. I and OP are looking at the primaries. Now.
The primaries are an example of voters getting the opportunity to untie as many people from the less populous track as possible. Then, down the line, they get the choice to flip the switch or not.
Limiting your mindset to in the end statements is doomerism. I don’t disagree with any of your statements but you’re just looking at things from a perspective I don’t find altogether useful.
And what happens if, as a direct result of the way this campaign was conducted during the primaries, Biden ends up losing? (say, because the GOP somehow latch onto this Genocide Joe thing and turn into a Swiftboat that drags his whole campaign down just enough for Trump to squeak a win).
In that hypothetical scenario would you feel that the right choices were made?
See, no matter which way you come at this, in the end you’re still stuck in the trolley problem.
The point is, if you’re not considering these actions now in the context of what impact they might potentially have when you get to that in the end point, then you’re driving at night without the lights on.
That’s not me saying “Don’t do it.” That’s me saying “Think very carefully about how you do it.”
as soon as the GOP starts caring about genocide in its messaging hell has frozen over and we might be saved lmao.
so yeah i think the right choices would have been made but i hope you recognize how absurd that hypothetical is.
(edit: oops duplicate comment)