Yes, and Jill Stein should win.
But since she won't, you have a dilemma about what to do with your vote.
It would be nice if the US had an electoral system that didn't create that problem, but it does.
The system needs change and the dems need change, well, so does the GOP.
Then why are you fixated on not voting or third party voting, which will accomplish none of this?
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.
This is all about
actually voting though.
It is about thinking through the consequences of voting in the system as it is and making choices.
Or are you now saying just "anyone who takes AIPAC money must be voted out regardless of any other position they take"?
Which is very possible with you.
Unless Stein wins and can change it.
So you've just decided to abandon reality completely at this point?
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.
You're the one who keeps saying he has to lose to make the dems learn and that even him changing his position wouldn't be enough because it is too late and he has to lose.
Isn't it already? Isn't voting for rump a choice about morality? Same with voting for Genocide Joe.
Of course your vote isn't an illustration of your personal morality.
Who on earth would want to pretend that it is in a compromised system?
That's the same idiocy as "You think Capitalism is a problem, and yet you still use money" as an argument.
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.
Of course they can!
And pointing out that voting that way is stupid and counter-productive is just pointing out reality to them.
That you don't
like me pointing out reality doesn't prevent reality from existing.
People who voted against a candidate because of their hair style will also be voting in an extremely stupid way.
I'm glad you understand this.
By arguing that its 'accomplish' you are saying voting can only be strategic, which is anti democratic.
What a deeply ignorant thing to say.
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.
That you cling to this delusion is the whole point of this argument and really I should drop it because it is clear you are never going to abandon your fantasy.
The First Past the Post system
does not allow for that.
In fact, it works
against it.
This is the whole point of why it needs to be changed.
Voting "honestly" in this system leads to worse outcomes.
Until you understand that, you understand nothing.
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.
And your argument would be silly and ridiculous, because you don't understand voting systems.
