• Sybil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    i mean to vote for someone who won’t support the genocide, but i wouldn’t fault anyone for looking at all the candidates and deciding none of them deserve to have the office.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        I was young once too

        this is ad hominem. what i’m saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don’t know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.

        this statement is pure sophistry. it’s disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.

        i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don’t get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don’t get to tell me how to vote.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Eventually you’ll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn’t suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time.

        no one proposed that

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          The. What is the goal? To get to the magical 5%?

          How’d that work out for Nader in 2000 when he didn’t even get to 3%? Was it worth it, when nearly 100k people voted for him in Florida, and Gore lost to Bush by a margin of only 537 votes? Would the environmentalists who supported Nader be more appreciative of Bush’s outcome than they would have been if Gores?

          Third parties are great. We absolutely need them. But they cannot and will not ever get a foothold starting at the top of the ballot. Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.

          • Sybil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yang really has the right idea in The Forward Party, starting down ballot before even contemplating higher office. It’s the only way another party will ever get any significant standing.

            if you think that, you should put energy toward that. but I don’t and won’t.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Nobody running for president, ever, has deserved the office. I sincerely believe, as Douglas Adams so eloquently put, that “those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.”

      I can’t think of any point in recent history where the choice is of who is deserving for office. The choice is, and has always been, who is the least undeserving of office (or the spoiler candidate). This year, I think it’s pretty obvious who is least undeserving of office.

      The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.