And anyone who explicitly decides voting for Harris/Walz explicitly decides they are fine with genocide irrespective of Trump.

No. They decide that they prioritise the other issues over a vapid gesture of protest.

For direct democratic votes, you directly vote on a specific issue. But in a representative democracy, you vote for the candidate best representing your preferred policies. If there is no candidate that ticks all your boxes, you prioritise and decide on a tradeoff.

That tradeoff takes into account the strategic realities of the voting system. If I have to choose between "Genocide", "Genocide, but worse" and "I'll let the rest decide", abstaining or voting 3rd party is no noble gesture, it's complacency.

In a fantasy world where he would actually do it, yes?

You'd let an out and open fascist take the reigns, if he'd stop one particular genocide?

So you're saying you are okay with max libertarianism in your own county even if that means ethnically cleansing an innocent population in another?

So much wrong with this sentence. First, no, I'm not a libertarian. If you mean liberty, check your translator. Second, we're very far away from "max liberty". Third, that's a false equivalency: To refuse one extreme doesn't equal embracing the opposite. There is a lot of space between them.

Fourth, if it's about the defense of civil rights, I need to look to my own freedom first. I can't help anyone else when I'm chained down myself. Particular if I can't help the others this way anyway, it's a lot smarter to prioritise things I can actually change than try to set a sign and hope it stays up long enough to matter.

Also saying "that one issue" when we're talking about a literal genocide is super rich. Would you have said the same thing about the Holocaust? "I know this Hitler guy really hates minorities but look at how much he loves doggos and what amazing things he's doing for the German economy!"

Brilliant! Your example for "that one issue" is the exact guy Trump would love to buddy uo with! The exact guy whom I hate with a passion because of so many issues, not just one. Would Hitler have been a good person if he hadn't killed the Jews (just enslaved them, deported the gypsies and generally still been an all around racist cunt)?

You see voting for a party that has vowed unwavering support for an oppressor to exterminate a native population as a move to the left?

That says a lot about where the window is, yes. Because both major parties fit that description, except one of them is even worse. Hence, the less bad one is a left, relative to contemporary political center.

You'd rather vote for Librofascists than Christofascists and that's your choice - I'd rather not vote for fascists at all.

So you'd rather have the rest of the people decide? You don't care about gay rights or all that shit, you have no horse in that race, doesn't matter to you whether the winner starts rounding up political enemies (you know, lefties like you and me)?

Because I fucking care. And I'm not going to throw a tantrum and quit the field because one issue I care about isn't even on the board.

Just don't blame voters that draw a hard line at genocide if the Dems lose, rather ask why they are willing to throw an election by not taking a hard stance against the literal worst crime against humanity.

I don't understand why people are so sure that a hard pro-Palestine stance would help them. It would make them the prime target of propaganda designed to alienate the superficial moderates. It would make them a clear enemy of the AIPAC and other pro-Israel PACs that together hold a non-negligible amount of sway. I don't think that the voters they'd gain by that outnumber the white moderates that hear "They're antisemitic moslems" and believe it.

If you believe that using the ballot to protest an issue not being on the agenda is more important than the other issues that are on the agenda, you're very narrow-minded.