You can’t scare people into supporting something they find abhorrent this time. This rhetoric is not going to work. We are talking about a fucking genocide my dude. You’re delusional if you think “but pussygrabber” is going to motivate principled people.
Comment on [deleted]
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 months agoNot voting is a choice that inherently favors republicans due to how consistent they tend to vote. So vote or not, you’re still supporting one candidate or another.
mister_monster@monero.town 2 months ago
Belastend@lemmy.world 2 months ago
That would imply the p7ssygrabber would stop the genocide. He wont. He will accelerate it.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It doesn’t matter. No amount of genocide is acceptable.
mister_monster@monero.town 2 months ago
I don’t know what he would do, I doubt veryuch different, and way less apologetic about it. But it doesn’t matter what he would do, what matters is the optics. One has a track record of funding genocide, the other doesn’t. This will sway a lot of people to at the very least stay home.
ReallyKinda@kbin.social 2 months ago
Active support of something totally morally unacceptable seems more morally culpable than refusing to participate. I don’t think most people are consequentialists—the how matters.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Emotionally yes, mathematically, no, exactly the same, and so morally, exactly the same