Letters to the Editor: Your 'protest vote' for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump : politics

Sorted by "controversial"

Example comment

All the things you want is only possible with a Harris win. You want a better political system and stuff like ranked choice voting or viable third parties? Only happens with the Democrats in control. Nothing that you want will EVER happen with Republicans in control and a vote for a third party in this election does nothing but help Republicans.

If you're refusing to hold your nose and vote Harris because of some bs reason like 'she hasn't earned my vote' when the alternative is a demented fascist that supports stuff like monitoring womens' periods then you deserve all the vote shaming you get.

  • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Let’s say candidate one said “if I win I’ll kill 3 babies,” and candidate two said “if I win I’ll only kill 1 baby”. Then you cast a protest vote for candidate three because “they’re both bad.”

    The problem is, that means you were willing to risk the deaths of 2 extra babies to prove your point, which means you’re actually a worse person than candidate two.

    More will suffer with Trump in charge. So voting third party is just you using others’ pain to prove your own point.

    They're doing the murdering babies analogy unprompted now.

    Link to comment just in case you think I'm making it up.

    • Angel [any]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Plot twist: candidate two ends up killing 3 babies anyway once they get elected, and everyone who voted for them is dead silent once this happens.

      • KimJongGoku [comrade/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        And next election candidate 1 says they'll kill 10 babies while candidate 2 says they'll stick to a reasonable 3 babies, because that's the new standard now and there is no incentive to make things any better blob-no-thoughts

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
      ·
      2 months ago

      They're doing the murdering babies analogy unprompted now.

      My first thought was "Holy mother of fuck!" But then I realized such "logic" has surely been floating around the net since early in the genocide in Gaza. The libs needed to create what they considered to be a moral case for voting for Biden and sometimes "Trump would be worse" wasn't strong enough. They had to hammer the point home.

      I wonder if some libs use the "kill 1 baby" argument in real life.

    • Justice@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      They literally don't understand basic logic and lack anything resembling morality.

      If you vote for the person killing any number of babies you still voted to kill babies.

      The only moral answer here is to choose neither. Or, I guess people are voting third party to message their refusal. Same thing ultimately.

      Democrats aren't going to "learn a lesson" btw. They didn't "learn" from Obama's hard right wing turn post 2008 victory, or 2016/2020 fucking the popular candidate (Bernie). They didn't learn from Bill Clinton or Carter being sacks of shit that just perpetuated and actually increased the evil of the system.

      There's nothing for them to learn. There have never been two candidates in my memory who were more alike in policy than Kamala and Trump. Sure, Trump is mean, orange, annoying guy. Who cares. Their policies are all basically the same. Something Trump himself keeps pointing out.

    • buckykat [none/use name]
      ·
      2 months ago

      The underlying assumption that millions of other people will of course be voting for some amount of baby murder

      But of course the ones to blame are the tiny minority who don't, somehow