politics

But seriously: if you're not voting for Biden, does that mean you instead vote for Trump? Or do you not vote at all? What if that results in another Trump presidency? What is the argument against voting for the lesser evil? Is it a matter of principle, then?

1. No, lmao.

2. Maybe, or maybe vote for Jill Stein of the Greens or Claudia De La Cruz of PSL.

3. Leftists voting for leftists will not be what results in a Trump presidency. What will is Biden killing his own chances by doubling down on failing liberalism and genocide, blaming voters for disengaging from one genocidal party is wrong.

4. The argument against voting for the lesser of 2 evils is only applicable if electoralism actually works. Historically, backing genocide and failing liberalism instead of taking a principled stance just results in further evil the next time around.

5. It isn't a matter of "principle," per se. If I were to ask you if you would rather vote for 50 genocides, 100 genocides, or 0 genocides, even if 0 genocides hasn't been elected yet, would you back the 50 genocide candidate or assume it to be a lost cause? What about 1 genocide, 1 genocide, and 0 genocides? When do you jump ship? People against voting for Biden think 1 genocide is enough to ditch him over.

Unless you think Trump is the superior candidate, in which case I am not really interested in talking to you.

Nobody here really thinks that except people who think Trump would destabilize NATO.

I mean, yes, it would be better if instead of Biden they ran someone younger and more progressive. And even better would be if the ridiculous two-party system was replaced altogether. But slim as the chance of that happening with Biden is, it is surely even more unlikely for that to happen with the Republicans and Trump in power, right?

What makes you think the Democrats would change the system that works for them? Neither the DNC nor GOP are interested in fielding Leftist candidates or passing major electoral reform. The first option harms their donors, and the second harms their electoral chances, as most people prefer third party policies.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just genuinely confused as it seems I'm missing something that's perhaps obvious to you.

You're missing the core throughline that people here believe positive change is impossible electorally at the federal level, and change instead comes from unionizing, protesting, organizing, and generally performing direct action. Read The State and Revolution if you're serious about learning.