Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
The democratic party realizes it’s losing voters instead of gaining them and reverses course. And yes that requires being willing to carry out the threat of not voting for Biden in November.
Electoral boycotts aren’t new. And our entire political philosophy is based around voters holding elected leaders responsible. Saying we have to vote for someone completely removes that accountability.
I base my facts on research and my college education in politics.
If the choice is genocide or genocide then it’s not a real choice and this election is not legitimate.
In spite of you saying it’s not a real choice, you seem to be choosing #3 or #4.
Bold choice. We’ll see how it goes.
No. That’s your categorization. Not mine.
It is my categorization. But it’s a logical framing.
I’d be interested to hear if there are any other logical possibilities outside the four I named.
You might be making an illogical choice, and that’s ok. It is you, and you can make your own choice.
The democratic party realizes it’s losing voters instead of gaining them and reverses course. And yes that requires being willing to carry out the threat of not voting for Biden in November.
You base all your facts on feels, dontcha?
I won’t be responding any more to you, since you are an untrustworthy interlocutor. And I mean that!
Electoral boycotts aren’t new. And our entire political philosophy is based around voters holding elected leaders responsible. Saying we have to vote for someone completely removes that accountability.
I base my facts on research and my college education in politics.