It’s more of a difference in practical values. At what point does the “lesser evil” itself become intolerable evil? Some people insist that you should vote for Hitler over 101% Hitler, that there is no intolerable level as long as there is a miniscule difference. Others have firm red lines in the sand, like genocide, where they advocate for abandoning them and pushing as hard as you can, even advocating for moves outside the electoral system like revolution.
So to put this in more practical terms, one would neither vote for Hitler or 101% Hitler, and instead vote for The Other Person who Isn’t Much Hitler At All, or abstain or something, and protest and take action in other ways?
Which candidate who opposes both Russia and Israel’s genocide has a path to the presidency? Legitimately, fully feasible path in 3 weeks to get this candidate to have 270 electoral votes?
It’s more of a difference in practical values. At what point does the “lesser evil” itself become intolerable evil? Some people insist that you should vote for Hitler over 101% Hitler, that there is no intolerable level as long as there is a miniscule difference. Others have firm red lines in the sand, like genocide, where they advocate for abandoning them and pushing as hard as you can, even advocating for moves outside the electoral system like revolution.
So to put this in more practical terms, one would neither vote for Hitler or 101% Hitler, and instead vote for The Other Person who Isn’t Much Hitler At All, or abstain or something, and protest and take action in other ways?
The “correct” answer is to vote for “Not Hitler” and join a revolutionary org, such as FRSO or PSL in the US.
Which candidate who opposes both Russia and Israel’s genocide has a path to the presidency? Legitimately, fully feasible path in 3 weeks to get this candidate to have 270 electoral votes?
The point isn’t to win the presidency, but to show the votes the Dems threw away by being genocidal, and again, joining revolutionary orgs.