I didn’t say they’re all the same. Democrats are right wing neoliberal representatives of corporate interests which run contrary to the long term survival of humanity; who Republicans are far right wing neoliberal representatives of corporate interests which run contrary to the long and short term survival of humanity but also are openly racist. Both openly outright support genocide ass so their voters.
There’s plenty of politicians that do not fall under these categories, in fact three of whom are currently running for president, two of whom have ballot access for 400+ electoral votes.
Of course, two weeks to the election: “vote third party!” May as well be saying, “Throw away your votes and make sure that you have even less say in the outcome of this election than most people already have, and let the even smaller minority decide for you.”
Third parties should be valid choices, but they aren’t. Not in a First Past The Post voting system. They are never the sound choice when FPTP always leads to two diametrically opposed major parties. IIf you want third parties to be relevant and good choices beyond local elections, advocate for voting system reform, not for people to throw away their votes out of dissatisfaction with the status quo. For now, we live in reality, and we have to vote accordingly.
Edit: Also, way to say “I’m not saying they are the same. They are different… I’m just saying their differences are essentially negligible” pffft. Ok.
Effectively and intently are different in this case. The margins are so close that “not voting for genocode” is voting for worse genocide. We don’t get a choice of not genocide.
I didn’t say they’re all the same. Democrats are right wing neoliberal representatives of corporate interests which run contrary to the long term survival of humanity; who Republicans are far right wing neoliberal representatives of corporate interests which run contrary to the long and short term survival of humanity but also are openly racist. Both openly outright support genocide ass so their voters.
There’s plenty of politicians that do not fall under these categories, in fact three of whom are currently running for president, two of whom have ballot access for 400+ electoral votes.
Of course, two weeks to the election: “vote third party!” May as well be saying, “Throw away your votes and make sure that you have even less say in the outcome of this election than most people already have, and let the even smaller minority decide for you.”
Third parties should be valid choices, but they aren’t. Not in a First Past The Post voting system. They are never the sound choice when FPTP always leads to two diametrically opposed major parties. IIf you want third parties to be relevant and good choices beyond local elections, advocate for voting system reform, not for people to throw away their votes out of dissatisfaction with the status quo. For now, we live in reality, and we have to vote accordingly.
Edit: Also, way to say “I’m not saying they are the same. They are different… I’m just saying their differences are essentially negligible” pffft. Ok.
That’s nice dear, I’m not voting for genocide.
Effectively and intently are different in this case. The margins are so close that “not voting for genocode” is voting for worse genocide. We don’t get a choice of not genocide.