196

This argument is so archaic. The world isn't an us vs them.

Harm reduction is fine, but faced with a view going that way, why not use ranked choice. First choice might be I've cream, but if you can't do that, perhaps going somewhere else works.

I am not against voting, but the metaphor is really wrong and it doesn't communicate how voting changes almost nothing.

The problem is that Hilary supported Trump in pied piper strategy to have an easier person to run against. This means that you are doing exactly what they want you to do and they are protecting Trump because they need him to be the other candidate so you are forced to support ice cream made of genocide.

Democrats are terrorists now, that hold the entire country hostage and demand murder of civilians in Gaza for their financial gain. We don't have democracy either way, we will have genocide, wars and poverty either way. There really isn't that big of a difference, because they support each other so they can win against us, the people. They are the same team, funded by same people, running on same campaigns, running the same narrative of lesser evil vs evil, while actually working together.

Their next move is for democrats to support same policies that republicans do now, and fund even more extreme republicans so that can be their candidate. The strategy clearly works. Whatever you are voting against this elections, you will be forced to vote for the next.

Why do we always assume the ones who don't vote aren't going to vote to run us off the cliff?

My frustration with the get out and vote push is that there is always this weird assumption that the ones who aren't voting are some how going to magically push things into the "right" direction. What if we are all better off if they don't vote?