"Lesser of two evil" voters are unironically evil.
There is no obligation to vote for a candidate because you think they are more likely to win if that candidate is unambiguously in support of evil policies like genocide, brutality against immigrants, and so on. In fact, there is a moral obligation to vote for someone better should you have the opportunity. There can be a moral case to be made for other actions as well.
Now, many liberals will try and argue that whatever alternative candidate you propose cannot win. This is just a form of DARVO; Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, a strategy of master manipulators. They are the reason the good candidate does not get the votes. They are the ones refusing to vote for the best candidate. They then try to blame you, the person making the moral choice, that your moral action is a waste and their immoral action is the only legitimate one. It only seems so because of their carefully crafted sophistry. Do not fall for it.
They will try and use the consequences of their compromised candidate losing as part of their argument but it is irrelevant. Consequences are a result from any action or inaction. Consequences are not a barrier for the moral person to moral action; they are an excuses of immoral actions of immoral people. Besides, whatever argument they can present here is an argument in favor of the more moral third party candidate anyways.
Lastly and most importantly, voting is not gambling and therefore does not follow the same rules. In gambling you bet on a result you expect to happen. In voting this is an overall losing strategy and anyone who has paid attention to politics for more than a decade or two can see it transparently. The only path forward is to support candidates, policies, or actions that further your morally driven social and political goals. Anything else is a distraction at best and at worse, something that actively injures those goals.
Your evil for not supporting the guy arming fascists and facilitating a genocide!
"Lesser of two evil" voters are unironically evil.
There is no obligation to vote for a candidate because you think they are more likely to win if that candidate is unambiguously in support of evil policies like genocide, brutality against immigrants, and so on. In fact, there is a moral obligation to vote for someone better should you have the opportunity. There can be a moral case to be made for other actions as well.
Now, many liberals will try and argue that whatever alternative candidate you propose cannot win. This is just a form of DARVO; Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, a strategy of master manipulators. They are the reason the good candidate does not get the votes. They are the ones refusing to vote for the best candidate. They then try to blame you, the person making the moral choice, that your moral action is a waste and their immoral action is the only legitimate one. It only seems so because of their carefully crafted sophistry. Do not fall for it.
They will try and use the consequences of their compromised candidate losing as part of their argument but it is irrelevant. Consequences are a result from any action or inaction. Consequences are not a barrier for the moral person to moral action; they are an excuses of immoral actions of immoral people. Besides, whatever argument they can present here is an argument in favor of the more moral third party candidate anyways.
Lastly and most importantly, voting is not gambling and therefore does not follow the same rules. In gambling you bet on a result you expect to happen. In voting this is an overall losing strategy and anyone who has paid attention to politics for more than a decade or two can see it transparently. The only path forward is to support candidates, policies, or actions that further your morally driven social and political goals. Anything else is a distraction at best and at worse, something that actively injures those goals.
As always, fuck liberals and death to America.