Ephoron

Or we could look at it this way.

Either Harris gets fewer votes, or the Democrats get the message that supporting genocide is OK with the electorate, that it's a choice they can make without electoral repercussions.

One of those two things will happen.

Do you "want" to give the message to the Democrats that genocide is OK by you?

Or is it rather that you'd be prepared to risk that to avoid a Trump presidency?

It's not a false equivalency. If I don't vote - the matter in question here - it's not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I'm concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they'd better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.

It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don't say "you want soldiers to die" when describing someone who thinks it's a necessary risk to defend one's country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn't make any difference to the way we talk about it. It's about intent. I'm not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I'd vote for him. I'm aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.

What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must "want" one of them. That's just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I "want" neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.

I know you think you've set up some clever 'gothca', but it's just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually "want" one of them. Anyone can see that.

So still no actual counter-argument then? You realise that just saying option 1 is bad doesn't constitute an argument for choosing it over option 2?

I've argued thay voting for a party supporting genocide will create a norm that supporting genocide is OK, that it doesn't risk loss of support. That's a dangerous precedent to set because if politicians find it expedient to support another genocide they will know they can do so without risking their power. Withholding a vote is the only way of ensuring politicians know they will lose support if they are complicit in genocide. Therefore it is the only option to ensure genocide is not normalised.

I've also argued that if we follow a principle of voting Democrat no matter what their policies are, this will set another dangerous precedent that a) politicians do not have to adjust policy to meet the will of the electorate, and b) that we're effectively thereby creating a one party state.

Note the uses of phrases like "because..." and "therefore..." These are how you construct an argument. Take some agreed premise and draw conclusions with rational steps.

Your counter-argument can't just be "but Trump's goimg to do bad things to minorities" because that doesn't counter any of the points in the argument I made. You'd have to disagree with some premise or one of the conclusions therefrom, or argue why you think minority rights are more import than the consequences I've reasoned toward.

And it may alarm you to discover that putting something in alternating capitals doesn't really persuade anyone of even moderate intelligence of anything. It's not really a stand in for justificatory reasoning.

what you’re doing by “risking” a Trump presidency is potentially going to hurt a lot of people

This is beyond the pale. You must have checked off on all of your entitlements before you came to this realization. Because what you’re doing by “risking” genocide being normalised is potentially going to hurt a lot of people. Get over yourself and pay attention to what’s going here.

See how pointless conversation becomes if you just assume your interlocutor is mistaken without a case.

We might as well be in a school-yard yelling "no you are..."

If you think a Trump presidency risks more harm than normalising genocide and undermining democracy, then make the fucking case. This is a discussion forum. Discuss. What is your evidence, how have you weighed it, what critique can you offer of the case I've made... Give us something beyond childish bleating.

I'm not required to want either.

"Either some Ukrainian soldiers die, or Putin takes over Ukraine, that's the reality"...

"Oh! So you want Ukrainian soldiers to die!"

Being prepared to risk something is not the same as actively promoting that thing. This is not up for debate, it's a basic fact.

you'll have to live with the consequences.

That's true of all decisions. You're advocating a single party autocracy. One whose opening policy is to support genocide. You'll have to live with the consequences of that decision too.

I want it to be whichever results from us attempting to preserve democracy.

Our nation has taken far, far bigger risks than 4 years of Trump to preserve democracy.

Determining something to be an acceptable risk is not the same as wanting it. Casualties are an acceptable risk of a just war. No one says people want soldiers to die.

I'm prepared to risk a Trump presidency to preserve some semblance of democracy and make it clear that genocide is never an acceptable option. That doesn't mean I want a Trump presidency any more than being prepared to risk soldier's lives during war means you want soldiers to die.

That's the same thing.

Your claim is that, come election time, we should always vote for the least worst party which has a chance of getting in. That's always the Democrats and always will be if we follow your system.

So the corollary of your system is that one party runs America for ever.

So why bother with elections at all?

And let's be clear here what you're advocating.

In the case that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, people should vote Democrat and no other party.

The Republicans will always be worse than the Democrats.

Therefore, people should always vote Democrat in all cases and no other party.

That's exactly the Chinese totalitarian system. One party which you must vote for regardless of what you think of their policies.

Anyone who wants a different candidate in 2028 that supports their views needed to get really involved in 2020, at the latest.

They did.

Again, your blind faith that the system will work if only the people just tried harder is sycophantic at best, if not downright insulting.

And besides, you're the one imploring them to just vote without any regard to policy, so what exactly is "getting involved"?

Why would the Democrats listen to anything anyone says if they're guaranteed your vote come election day anyway?

What? A group of scientists can be pressured by government agencies to make a chemical sound safer than it is?

But, but, but... It's The Science™...

Thank goodness there was never anything shady going on at the NIH, or CDC during Covid, like them covering up funding for the lab that might have been responsible for the entire pandemic...

Thank goodness any question of The Science™ being influenced by government was tinfoil-hatwearing conspiracy theory, just at that specific moment.