That’s totally fallacious. Not voting is not voting. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is that you think that one specific party is by default entitled to votes, no matter what they do, which is wrong. Politicians have to earn votes. They chose a platform which was not popular and so they lost. And they did that to protect specific interests.
I do get being upset at people who are nominally on your side but decided not to vote. It’s understandable. But in no way are they anywhere near as much to blame as the people who had a more than two billion dollar marketing budget for their political campaign and decided “fuck what the people want”.
With the way our first past the goalposts system works, it’s true. By not voting you’re saying that you’re fine with either outcome.
When one of those options has straight up told you they’ll be a dictator on day one and you’ll never vote again, as well as publishing their playbook on how they’re going to do it, choosing to not vote against them is saying you’re fine with it.
And it’s not like protest voting actually hurt the DNC. It just hurt every vulnerable person in the country.
No it’s fact. Not voting supports the less good candidate 100% of the time in FPtP.
And yes, non voters are more responsible for this than the DNC sending a shit message. If non voters and third party voted Kamala, we wouldn’t have a dictator in the White house right now. The DNC didn’t put him there, voters for Trump and non voters did.
No it’s fact. Not voting supports the less good candidate 100% of the time in FPtP.
What are you talking about? It’s pretty rich to accuse others of lacking critical thinking and then come out with this. Someone who didn’t vote could have equally been someone who didn’t vote for trump. You mean “someone who was going to vote for the democrats but then didn’t”.
The DNC purposefully threw the election. They are the ones with agency here. Each non voter might have gotten them 0.00001% closer to winning. They could have gotten themselves 100% closer.
This is a matter of statistics. Statistically, what I’m saying is a fact. You don’t have to like it, but voters and non voters decided the election, not the DNC. The DNC sucks, but they didn’t cast votes for Trump and didn’t sit out the election. They carry blame for dissuading voters, but it’s still all comes back to those voters. The DNC could have said probably anything, and it shouldn’t have mattered because it was still Kamala v Trump. Anyone that didn’t vote because of the words of a bunch of old fools when the candidates were right there to see, is an idiot.
Wrong. They made a deliberate choice to pursue a platform that would lose them the election because they care more about killing children overseas than they care about not killing children at home. You don’t have to like it, but that’s what’s a fact.
It doesn’t matter what they said or pushed for. There were two known commodities, Kamala and Trump, one of them was going to win. Everyone knew what Trump would do. Whether Kamala would have done anything to improve the situation overseas is an unknown, but I guarantee there was a better chance of positive change had she won.
Anyone that based their voting off of the DNC instead of their own eyes, again, is an idiot.
That’s totally fallacious. Not voting is not voting. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is that you think that one specific party is by default entitled to votes, no matter what they do, which is wrong. Politicians have to earn votes. They chose a platform which was not popular and so they lost. And they did that to protect specific interests.
I do get being upset at people who are nominally on your side but decided not to vote. It’s understandable. But in no way are they anywhere near as much to blame as the people who had a more than two billion dollar marketing budget for their political campaign and decided “fuck what the people want”.
With the way our first past the goalposts system works, it’s true. By not voting you’re saying that you’re fine with either outcome.
When one of those options has straight up told you they’ll be a dictator on day one and you’ll never vote again, as well as publishing their playbook on how they’re going to do it, choosing to not vote against them is saying you’re fine with it.
And it’s not like protest voting actually hurt the DNC. It just hurt every vulnerable person in the country.
No it’s fact. Not voting supports the less good candidate 100% of the time in FPtP.
And yes, non voters are more responsible for this than the DNC sending a shit message. If non voters and third party voted Kamala, we wouldn’t have a dictator in the White house right now. The DNC didn’t put him there, voters for Trump and non voters did.
What are you talking about? It’s pretty rich to accuse others of lacking critical thinking and then come out with this. Someone who didn’t vote could have equally been someone who didn’t vote for trump. You mean “someone who was going to vote for the democrats but then didn’t”.
The DNC purposefully threw the election. They are the ones with agency here. Each non voter might have gotten them 0.00001% closer to winning. They could have gotten themselves 100% closer.
This is a matter of statistics. Statistically, what I’m saying is a fact. You don’t have to like it, but voters and non voters decided the election, not the DNC. The DNC sucks, but they didn’t cast votes for Trump and didn’t sit out the election. They carry blame for dissuading voters, but it’s still all comes back to those voters. The DNC could have said probably anything, and it shouldn’t have mattered because it was still Kamala v Trump. Anyone that didn’t vote because of the words of a bunch of old fools when the candidates were right there to see, is an idiot.
Wrong. They made a deliberate choice to pursue a platform that would lose them the election because they care more about killing children overseas than they care about not killing children at home. You don’t have to like it, but that’s what’s a fact.
It doesn’t matter what they said or pushed for. There were two known commodities, Kamala and Trump, one of them was going to win. Everyone knew what Trump would do. Whether Kamala would have done anything to improve the situation overseas is an unknown, but I guarantee there was a better chance of positive change had she won.
Anyone that based their voting off of the DNC instead of their own eyes, again, is an idiot.