To those in countries where democracy might last another election

Hey thanks for not helping. Wait, no. No thanks. You failed everyone and yourself, guaranteed extra double genocide and learned nothing.

Electoral puritanism like this is a big part of why we now have concentration camps in America.

Thanks for that.

Funny how Democrats never used to have to complain about Purity Tests back when they were doing things like attempting to pass universal healthcare. In fact I’d literally never even heard the phrase (in that context) before last year and suddenly it’s everywhere.
The camps already existed with Biden, Trump is just putting more money into them
- Yeah the downvotes you're getting really illustrate the three monkeys approach of centrists. Outright denial not only of opinions, but objective facts. Trump immigration policy is just Biden's turned up a notch, but with a lot of performative cruelty thrown in. Biden's immigration policy is just Trump's turned down a notch, with less performative cruelty. Trump vice signals, Biden virtue signaled. But their actual policies on immigration are very very similar.
  
  Bullshit.
  
  Found Blue MAGA.
  
  Trump immigration policy is just Biden's turned up a notch, but with a lot of performative cruelty thrown in
  So what you're saying is it's not just Biden's turned up a notch, he's doing it differently and much, much worse. The idea that, because both of them are immigration policies that include deportation, they must be the same thing is infantile
  One of them is in favor of deporting all of the Latinos, but really it's the same policy lmao
  
  Biden ran concentration camps. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this.
  
  I'm aware of this. Trump's are worse.
  
  Your moral compass is broken.
  
  "Less suffering is preferable to more suffering" indicates a functioning moral compass
  
  You have no red lines. You would vote for Hitler if he was running against someone 1% worse. Again, your moral compass is broken.
  
  Define "red line" for me. It really seems like you think that less suffering and more suffering are morally equivalent, which indicates a defective moral compass incapable of understanding magnitude. Either that, or you have a defective moral compass that allows you to extricate yourself from moral dilemmas by saying that, because you can't pick the option you wish you had, you're somehow justified in not picking the best available option.
  In your little Hitler analogy, you think it's morally superior to let 60,000 more Jews die just to say "well, I'd prefer if we didn't kill any," and you're saying I have a broken moral compass. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I would genuinely prefer to know that you understand that it is a worse thing when more people die
  
  JFC deporting people if their asylum claim fails isn't the same as what trump is doing. That you're trying to equate them is mind bogglingly bad. Anything to confuse the issue and say b b both sides same, huh. I recognize your name so I'm not going to reply further.
The puritanism is that both parties are fascist.
- Both parties are equally bad, that's why we're letting 65 million Latinos get deported instead of not letting 65 million Latinos get deported. Less genocide is actually just as bad as more genocide
  
  You are pretending Biden/Harris were promising less genocide, which is wishful thinking on your part. Biden/Harris let them do what they wanted to whatever degree they wanted, and pretended to fight back.
  
  You are pretending Biden/Harris were promising less genocide, which is wishful thinking on your part.
  Nope. I feel like we're looking at this from two different perspectives. Comparing 2025 to 2024, there was always going to be more genocide. Comparing the two potential 2025s (the one in which Trump wins and the one in which Harris wins), one of them has more genocide than the other, and one of them has less genocide than the other.
  Maybe if I put it this way it'll make more sense: a smaller increase in deaths is preferable to a larger increase in deaths. Of course, a reduction in deaths would be preferable to both, but that option wasn't available.
  
  Where you and I will probably never agree is that you think Harris/Biden would have meant less genocide.
  Biden did a bunch of lying about that, but you give him the benefit of the doubt and I cant. And Harris had a prominent bloodthirsty zionist as a husband (recent marriage) and a bloodthirsty zionist campaign manager. Thinking she'd break left after her actions and words to the contrary was never realistic. Emhoff explicitely said he'd spend his time in office fighting antisemitism, which he equates with any criticism at all of Israel.
  https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/the-biden-administrations-false-history-of-ceasefire-negotiations/
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/us/politics/doug-emhoff-kamala-harris.html
  When both Trump and Biden give the zionists full support and free reign, theres no real distinction to be had around more or less genocide. It just doesnt exist. Harris and Biden were there to soak up campaign donations and ignore their base.
  
  you think Harris/Biden would have meant less genocide.
  ...than trump. Less genocide than Trump. Who is presently committing a genocide against the Latino population in the US.
  
  ok well, at least we agree that we're effectively nazis now.

Single issue voter is still committed to being uncommitted.

An issue easily adressed but stubbornly dismissed for no reason
- Only simple according to the internet narratives.
  The options are: a) convince Hamas to release the hostages b) convince Israel to abandon their people c) wait for the IDF to find where Hamas is hiding and free the hostages (or more likely in most cases, find the bodies of those abducted) while urging restraint.
  Option a) is difficult because Hamas is a group of psychopaths. There have been some hostages released in exchange for ceasefires and release of Hamas fighters from prison, but then that just means more people the IDF will fight when Hamas stops releasing hostages. If this were a conflict out in an empty field then whatever, but since the battlefield is a densely populated urban environment, this means civilian casualties.
  Option b) just isn't going to happen.
  So option c) is the only one left while there's constant talks to negotiate a ceasefire. Current status on that: Israel has agreed to a ceasefire if Hamas releases the hostages and Hamas has said they "look favourably on a ceasefire" but they always say that.

And those four are functionally equivalent to people who didn't vote because they're okay with either option

Genocide is much more like driving off a cliff than having ice cream or not voting.
It's kind of sad that I even have to say this.
- I mean if we want a better analogy, Harris represented the "crash the bus into a building" party, and Trump represented the "crash the bus into a building and explode" party. 3 people are voting for building, 4 people are voting for building and explode, and 4 people are saying "I don't care whether we explode."
  One of those 4 thinks they're making some kind of statement by saying "I don't want to crash at all, so I won't be voting." He is indistinguishable from the 3 that just don't care
  
  Maybe stop with the dumb fucking analogies and talk about the real situation for a change. It's not too complex to talk about (and if it is to you, holy fuck, maybe shut up and do some reading first?) and you're fooling nobody with your deflections.
  
  Analogies are useful, not just for understanding a difficult subject, but for seeing a familiar subject in a new perspective. When your audience is eschewing logic due to compartmentalized thinking, analogies can help break them free.
  
  I have no problem talking about the real situation. One of the parties is in favor of less genocide, one of the parties is in favor of more genocide, and non voters don't care whether we get less or more genocide.
  Of course it would be better for everyone we could have elected a third party, but the choice was between Harris (sells weapons to Israel) and Trump (sells more weapons to Israel and also starts a genocide here in America), and non voters didn't care which side won. In the absence of the option you want, you have to make the best available choice.
  
  Less genocide, but not the stopping of genocide? Man, do I not feel sorry for gringos when they act like this is a moral choice.
  How would you know, anyway? They refused to acknowledge there was a genocide in the first place while they sent a record amount of money and weapons. Oh wow, such harm reduction.
  
  No genocide > less genocide > more genocide. No genocide was not on the ballot; the choices were less and more. Reread the last sentence of the comment you replied to. I guess you're right though, the Democrats could have started a genocide against the American Latino population. I guess there's no way to know which option was less harmful

When your main issue isn't on the ballot, it doesn't matter in the election.

The other four didn't think this through because only one party had a subset of their coalition who opposed genocide, and also opposed 2 other genocides: the one Russia perpetrates against Ukraine, and climate change (leaving aside things like, you know, women's rights and LGBTQ+ rights... And not as a case-in-point the internal genocide of poor people when 50,000 Americans will now die from being dropped from Medicaid thanks to a bill that only ~~Republicans~~ the cliff-divers would have passed).

There's a genocide on the bus too?

Libs will tell the craziest stories just to avoid reality.

Libs will tell the craziest stories just to avoid reality.
"Avoiding reality is when you use literary devices that are so complex literal children can parse them."
I'm sorry that you can't quite grasp what an analogy is yet. I hope you continue your education at some point.
- I'm sorry you're unable to defend a single point without resorting to contrived scenarios where every option except the one you want is unbelievably stupid or cartoonishly evil
  
  I’m sorry you’re unable to defend a single point without resorting to contrived scenarios where every option except the one you want is unbelievably stupid or cartoonishly evil
  There were only two realistic options in the 2024 election.
  Are you saying Trump et co wasn't unbelievably stupid and cartoonishly evil?
  Otherwise, you're in agreement with me and throwing a fit over nothing.