You have argued he has to lose.
Don't try to weasel out of it now.
Yes, and Jill Stein should win.
Because it isn't electoral change.
And you have been saying the whole time that the point is to change the system. This is what you complain about me not proposing.
If you were talking about shifting the political parties' positions on the issue, you would be talking about that.
Those are completely different things.
The system needs change and the dems need change, well, so does the GOP.
Changing the dems is first so that the system can be changed, turfing out all who took AIPAC money and aiding the progressives would be a start.
Unless Stein wins and can change it.
You have said "Biden must lose" and the point of him losing is so that the dems will learn their lesson and come over to your position.
Yes, that is "Biden must be punished" no matter how often you try to pretend it isn't.
Its not 'punishment', Biden needs to earn the chance to win. He could have but instead chose to waste it backing genocide.
Your language makes a mockery of democracy.
Of course where that vote goes is up to the voter.
As I have said repeatedly, the voter needs to think about what the purpose of their vote is and what they accomplish by it.
That is the part you and I disagree about.
You seem to want voters to cast it as a sort of statement about their own personal morality instead.
Isn't it already? Isn't voting for rump a choice about morality? Same with voting for Genocide Joe.
But that's also democracy, voters can choose to vote by age, hair style, party colours or whatever reason they want.
They are free to vote for who they want to win instead of only voting strategically if they want.
Yes!
You choose what to vote for based on what you are trying to accomplish.
I'm not sure why you are so violently opposed to that - or worse, insist on denying the things you say you want to accomplish with your vote.
By arguing that its 'accomplish' you are saying voting can only be strategic, which is anti democratic.
You are supposed to vote for the person who most supports your views and is mostly likely to enact policy to make it happen.
You are not supposed to vote only to win.
Of course they will!
My issue is that they should choose with intention and not be deluded about what they are choosing and why.
As always, I find it fascinating that you freely admit the point of casting a vote this way is to make Biden lose and then turn around and deny that is what you are doing and instead claim votes should be about personal feelings.
(That you know this not to be true is shown by how hard you try to deny anything bad will happen when Trump wins because it would make you feel bad to have contributed to that, even though you KNOW that is what you are doing.)
This is back to your view that strategic voting is the only option. That's your view and your metric, just as you are free to argue its naive to vote for what you actually want instead of choosing the lesser of two massive evils.
Again, that is your right! (Well, it isn't, you don't vote.)
You have decided it is better for Trump to be in power.
Biden's actions are such that you must see him deposed and he must be punished electorally.
Whatever Trump does in the 4 years that follow is justified because hopefully the Dems will learn to be more anti-Israel in the future, then after learning that they will convince the American people to be the same, and after that the Dems will win the election and implement an anti-Israeli policy.
The trade off of all GOP policies and USA actions in the meantime are totally justified by this.
That decision -- that this is a wise trade off -- is absolutely one that any voter is allowed to make.
Yes, some people have limits to what they will support.
Some people will support conmen, some will back a rapist, some would vote for KKK candidates, others won't vote for any of those.
I would argue that it takes a certain kind of special for someone who is very well educated and informed to choose to actively vote to support someone who is aiding genocide, the one person who could have stopped it but chose not to. I would argue that someone who has studied politics should really know their choice is not to just choose between a hitler and a mussolini, their choice is to back the both of them and the genocide they support.
Someone who really knows political history and has any kind of wisdom and/or morality should be working their ass off to stop genocide, not using weasel words to argue that its 'pragmatic' and being mean by 'punishing' someone who should be on the docket at the ICC.
