Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
Yeah, that’s cool, so am I - that’s not the only thing that’s on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as “Well, I’m not voting for anyone”, but this is very much a “If you aren’t voting against Trump, you’re voting for him, directly or indirectly” situation.
It’s cool, though - I’m sure everyone will understand. You couldn’t do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue’s outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We’ll all overlook that.
It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.
First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
Apologies for paraphrasing you, but the system isn’t set up to support that either.
That said, It’s going to be happening a lot anyway in 2026 now that the Republican party is coming apart at the seams and the remaining “moderates” are jumping ship. I’m looking forward to the new left wing coalition, it’s going to be such a wonderful mess.
Given that, I expect you’ll be voting for the ‘less bad’ candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the ‘more bad’ candidate in winning, then?
No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.
Yeah, that’s cool, so am I - that’s not the only thing that’s on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as “Well, I’m not voting for anyone”, but this is very much a “If you aren’t voting against Trump, you’re voting for him, directly or indirectly” situation.
It’s cool, though - I’m sure everyone will understand. You couldn’t do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue’s outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We’ll all overlook that.
AKA:
“Why are you hitting that screw with a hammer?”
“I refuse to use a screwdriver; it takes too long and I’m morally opposed to patents that you get with screwdriver heads.”
“You do know that your hammering is going to make a total mess of things, rIght?”
“I don’t care; it’s the principled stance I’m willing to take to build this house.”
Claims to have a principled opposition to screwdriver head patents: buys screws anyway.
Sounds like the Democrats to me. All “I’m the anti-genocide candidate!” while shipping cluster bombs to the middle east.
It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.
Apologies for paraphrasing you, but the system isn’t set up to support that either.
That said, It’s going to be happening a lot anyway in 2026 now that the Republican party is coming apart at the seams and the remaining “moderates” are jumping ship. I’m looking forward to the new left wing coalition, it’s going to be such a wonderful mess.
I was told that no one can because AIPAC.
Thank you for saying this.
AKA: whatever this tedious bullshit is.
Yes, I feel very strongly about innocent lives.
Given that, I expect you’ll be voting for the ‘less bad’ candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the ‘more bad’ candidate in winning, then?
No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.
If you’d be just as happy with Donald “Do what you have to do” Trump as with Harris, you can’t feel too strongly about innocent lives.
You can’t go from an “if” to a “you” accusatory statement so well when that “if” isn’t true.
If the ‘If’ isn’t true, then the ‘you’ doesn’t apply to you, that’s how conditionals work.