You voted for somebody complicit in a genocide. You call that intelligent? Do you think it becomes intelligent because 70+ million other people also did it? Real “if everyone else jumped off a bridge” moment.
I voted for someone whose values, and whose party’s values, are closer to what I believe is best for average citizens in the United States of America, based on hard data over the course of decades. If the other option was better for Palestine then maybe your argument would make sense…but that isn’t the case, so it doesn’t.
Instead, 3rd party voters voted for candidates that had absolutely, positively, undeniably no chance of winning, and now they get a president that least represents their ideals.
I responded to another comment of yours with the “we’re not voting for them because we’re not voting them” fallacy 2 hours ago. Apparently you didn’t read it, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it. Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/14469499
A population using “chance of winning” (i.e. “is the population voting for them”) as a criteria for voting for a candidate is circular logic and irrational. End of discussion. You can act like an arrogant know-it-all after you actually gain the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.
You voted for somebody complicit in a genocide. You call that intelligent? Do you think it becomes intelligent because 70+ million other people also did it? Real “if everyone else jumped off a bridge” moment.
I voted for someone whose values, and whose party’s values, are closer to what I believe is best for average citizens in the United States of America, based on hard data over the course of decades. If the other option was better for Palestine then maybe your argument would make sense…but that isn’t the case, so it doesn’t.
Instead, 3rd party voters voted for candidates that had absolutely, positively, undeniably no chance of winning, and now they get a president that least represents their ideals.
Real intelligent.
Removed by mod
I responded to another comment of yours with the “we’re not voting for them because we’re not voting them” fallacy 2 hours ago. Apparently you didn’t read it, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it. Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/14469499
A population using “chance of winning” (i.e. “is the population voting for them”) as a criteria for voting for a candidate is circular logic and irrational. End of discussion. You can act like an arrogant know-it-all after you actually gain the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.