Yes Kamala is in favor of a two state solution and thinks more should be done to protect the innocents caught in the middle, and Trump told Netanyahu to “finish the job”.
So your options are three people who have absolutely no chance of getting even a single electoral college vote, let alone a majority. Or in other words, to potentially feed the spoiler effect.
Being a single issue voter doesn’t make sense at the best of times, but when it means you’re voting for someone who has no chance of winning and potentially helping an even worse candidate get into office, it’s even worse. If we had ranked-choice voting on a nationwide count, it wouldn’t be as bad (and would be fine if after you’d voted for those candidates on the one issue you actually weighed in between the major candidates), but that’s sadly not the world in which we live.
Go ahead and vote third party if you’re in a state like Alabama where there’s no chance of a difference regardless. But in a swing state, third party votes can and do add up to lives lost.
Well purely on the genocide topic… While both major parties appear to be okay with one genocide, only one of them appears to want to do their own genocides within the US.
Where on earth did you get that from my comment? If one genocide is bad, surely that same genocide (although arguably made more effective) plus an entirely separate, second genocide is worse?
What does genocide have to do with voting though? Is there a choice? With abortion there is.
Yes Kamala is in favor of a two state solution and thinks more should be done to protect the innocents caught in the middle, and Trump told Netanyahu to “finish the job”.
Quite the choice.
So Trump is honest and Kamala lies to get votes?
Guess who “is in favor of a two state solution” as well: Biden says he’s pushing a 2-state solution. Let’s put him to the test.
Liberal memory capacity is a sight to behold.
There are plenty of voting choices against Genocide. They just so happen to not be Democrat (or Republican).
So… No?
Jill Stein, Cornel West, even the Libertarians if you’re more right wing.
So your options are three people who have absolutely no chance of getting even a single electoral college vote, let alone a majority. Or in other words, to potentially feed the spoiler effect.
Being a single issue voter doesn’t make sense at the best of times, but when it means you’re voting for someone who has no chance of winning and potentially helping an even worse candidate get into office, it’s even worse. If we had ranked-choice voting on a nationwide count, it wouldn’t be as bad (and would be fine if after you’d voted for those candidates on the one issue you actually weighed in between the major candidates), but that’s sadly not the world in which we live.
Go ahead and vote third party if you’re in a state like Alabama where there’s no chance of a difference regardless. But in a swing state, third party votes can and do add up to lives lost.
What’s there to spoil?
Well purely on the genocide topic… While both major parties appear to be okay with one genocide, only one of them appears to want to do their own genocides within the US.
There’s a difference between doing it against foreign brown people or American brown people?
Where on earth did you get that from my comment? If one genocide is bad, surely that same genocide (although arguably made more effective) plus an entirely separate, second genocide is worse?
Jill Stein. No one said you have to pick your favorite of the 2 Hitlers to vote for.