Yes.
You have repeatedly said the most important, indeed the ONLY important thing to vote on is the position on Palestine.
That being the case, you obviously want to vote for the person who has the best chance to get into power and stop the genocide.
Since the Libertarian is clearly in the better position to win, you must vote for the Libertarian.
You have said, repeatedly, that any other consequences are secondary to that issue.
Now, I have accused you repeatedly of just posturing and arguing that the point of your vote is to show that you support certain things and the actual outcome of the election is secondary.
This has made you angry and you have sometimes denied it (sort of - it mostly just makes you angry).
But if I take your idea that voting on the genocide trumps all other moral considerations, then obviously the Libertarian is the proper choice for you, because those other Libertarian positions shouldn't bother you compared to the real issue, which is genocide.
If you want to compare straw men...
You have repeatedly argued that nobody understands democracy as well as you or they would vote pragmatically to aid genocide.
You have argued that keeping rump out of power is the most important issue to you and anyone who votes on any other issue doesn't understand democracy.
You have also argued that most people don't understand democracy as well as you do or they would understand that while you need third parties you shouldn't vote for them.
You have argued that while Israel is committing genocide right now on Palestinians its more important to worry about who wins an election this fall.
You have repeatedly stated that genocide isn't really a big deal and should be way down on voters lists.
You have argued that the US spending $840 billion on war and genocide instead of social services and health care isn't as important as keeping your tribal choice in power.
You have argued that being a war criminal by aiding genocide doesn't discount a candidate and that the same tribalism that MAGA is based on applies to dems, that rules based democracy just isn't pragmatic. That anyone who would dare vote for a rules based system instead of tribalism doesn't understand democracy the way a tenured politics prof does, whether you are or not.
You have argued that keeping your binary tribal choice in power is more important than democracy itself, that voters should not vote for a third party even if it represents their views because it is a wasted vote given by people who clearly don't have degrees in politics and don't understand the system.
This is the corollary to your attacks, the next step in the form of 'debate' you clearly prefer.
I would pity students who were graded by someone who intentionally misstated positions to assert power.
Then stop saying he is single-handedly responsible for the genocide if that's not what you mean.
That's a shitty straw man - I have never said he is single handedly responsible for the genocide, only that he has single handedly aided and allowed the genocide to continue. The US is the only country that has the power to stop Israeli actions. The POTUS in the US gets executive power over foreign policy but Netanyahu is responsible for the genocide.
Coddling the feelings of people who are doing something that is counter productive to the cause they state they support isn't my style.
In an honest discussion you'd be talking about power and options.
What options do voters have in the US?
What power do they have in their positions?
You would also be willing to accept that just as some people will vote MAGA, some people won't vote for a party that spends money on genocide instead of social services.
Your claims of supremacy of understanding doesn't acknowledge the basics of the political system, the flaws in the system, how people choose to try to fix or change the system and most importantly the democratic basics of being able to make shitty choices if they choose. You can choose to educate people, but you aren't doing that here, you are doing the tenured prof type action of declaring supreme understanding while actively enforcing the feudal system that keeps tenured profs and billionaires in control in their worlds and belittling the actions of people with fewer resources and power to try to act to better the situation. Your presence here is based on you asserting your self declared power of understanding through occasional references to rules presently being ignored. You do have better understanding of the mechanics of the US political system but you appear to lack understanding of humans themselves. Its the same with ever prof I know, they spend their lives surrounded by people who have less experience and understanding and beating them down with arcane academic language the way Jordan Peterson uses language for MAGA, while at the same time in a competitive battle for their own position and SSRC prestige within a closed system that doesn't represent the reality of the world they study. I've had the privilege to study with a few who were genuinely interested in learning and teaching, people who enjoyed discussion in order to learn new ideas and clarify their own and I've studied with those who are their to assert their supremacy.
If you were interested in anything but asserting your own supremacy in defence of supremacy, we'd be having a much more interesting discussion about race, colonialism, political power, capitalism and systemic change. That would have been much more interesting.
Instead this is more like talking to a cop.
