I don’t vote because I believe voting is an immoral act, but for those that do vote, I think this is a significant comment. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that may be a bridge too far for some.
Yeah, I used to think that when I was young and ignorant. There is a real difference, and if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.
Just say that you don’t care, don’t pretend to be on some moral high ground.
If you don’t vote, stay out of the conversation, because this has nothing to do with you. If you want to join and share your opinion, do some research and take some action.
By not voting, you’re abdicating your chance to vote against the destruction of the country. If a Republican wins and does what they’re promising, tens of millions of people will suffer in all sorts of ways, a full spectrum of ouch. A painbow, so to speak. COVID alone killed over a million people here when Trump was president, nevermind his disastrous impact on the country as a whole or his foreign policy (mostly because numbers are hard to come by for the Kurds and Afghanis we abandoned, but go ahead and get opinions on how the Taliban has been running the place).
If you don’t vote, the suffering and death is partially on you, because you could have tried to stop it. That’s the immoral act, regardless of how you feel about the system itself. Hold your nose if you have to, and do it.
The debate shouldn’t be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire debate should be focused on opening up more options and the actual ability to vote for third party candidates without throwing your vote away, by implementing a different system, like ranked choice voting.
Continuing to focus on which Sith lord will blow up the country the least if elected is a losing play. We have to do better and focus our attention elsewhere if we have any chance of getting anything reformed.
I don’t vote because I believe voting is an immoral act, but for those that do vote, I think this is a significant comment. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that may be a bridge too far for some.
Yeah, I used to think that when I was young and ignorant. There is a real difference, and if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.
Just say that you don’t care, don’t pretend to be on some moral high ground.
If you don’t vote, stay out of the conversation, because this has nothing to do with you. If you want to join and share your opinion, do some research and take some action.
Well then apparently I’m old and ignorant.
By not voting, you’re abdicating your chance to vote against the destruction of the country. If a Republican wins and does what they’re promising, tens of millions of people will suffer in all sorts of ways, a full spectrum of ouch. A painbow, so to speak. COVID alone killed over a million people here when Trump was president, nevermind his disastrous impact on the country as a whole or his foreign policy (mostly because numbers are hard to come by for the Kurds and Afghanis we abandoned, but go ahead and get opinions on how the Taliban has been running the place).
If you don’t vote, the suffering and death is partially on you, because you could have tried to stop it. That’s the immoral act, regardless of how you feel about the system itself. Hold your nose if you have to, and do it.
The debate shouldn’t be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire debate should be focused on opening up more options and the actual ability to vote for third party candidates without throwing your vote away, by implementing a different system, like ranked choice voting.
Continuing to focus on which Sith lord will blow up the country the least if elected is a losing play. We have to do better and focus our attention elsewhere if we have any chance of getting anything reformed.
Then you have no right to an opinion on who gets elected.
I didn’t see myself offering an opinion on who gets elected.