My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.

Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren’t typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.

Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.

Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn’t render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.

While I agree with you, there is no harm in voting, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.

I personally prefer the fanta fascist, but that could just be me

He frequently stated during Harris’ campaign that he would support Isreal.

And what is “wokeness.” “Wokeness” means to them the existence of queer people, women, and POC.

Also, I envy you for not seeing democrats blame minorities for the rise of Trump, I wish I could be so happily nieve.

I dont have them on hand, but I’ve seen a few polls in swing states where 5 or so percent more undecided voters would be more likely to vote for Harris if she promised an arms embargo, as opposed to less likely.

Yes obviously, but it doesn’t excuse the other.

So are you agreeing with what I said about both people being murderers or not? Because of you are then you agree that it isn’t a wash, and if you disagree then you are fucking stupid.

That doesn’t work in this context, if one person murders someone, and another murders 2 people, both are still murderers, one just is a worse murderer(as in more evil, not as in worse at committing murder)

I’m assuming you’ve never seen her debates, or statements about the issue. If you had, you’d know that she pledged to continue supporting Isreal.

Tell me please, if one person committed a murder, and another person committed 2 murders, would both be evil, or just the one who did 2? Also, this isn’t advocating for non-voting, just pointing out that both people are evil. It also never says that they are equally evil, so this isn’t a “both sides” argument either.

And how does that change the fact that the post says there aren’t any? Last time I checked 1 is more than 0.

“Her form of genocide is much more elegant than her opponent’s.” I’m not sure where you’re getting that?

Yes, yes you can. Our shit political system means you have to pick one of 2 options, almost every anti-genocide person I have met is voting for her. This is because they aren’t idiots, and understand that Trump is far worse, and a non-voter is a Trump voters. You act like you have to love a candidate to vote for them, and that you aren’t allowed to want a candidate to be better.