Several presidents have put tax dollars to work on medical research. For example the The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) paved the way for money for the PreP trials in 2005.

Obama kicked off precision medicine and gene research.

Obama's HITECH Act reformed HIPAA in a way that improved outcomes for patients and the industry.

But yea, everything is black and white. Conflicts in Africa and the middle east are the only concern I could ever have.

I especially do not care at all about any medical advancements or harm reductions.

Everyone must survive and no one can ever be harmed or everything is lost.

You know you sound just like the every sperm is sacred anti abortion activists.

War = so bad we must sabotage anyone involved in war and trade all our liberties, freedoms, health, etc just to not have war!

Whilst it's a topic that can get very personal (which is why invariably political discussions ultimately get heated very quickly, as this thread has shown), I think the point here essentially boils down to pointing out what not voting means.

In a system where you have one side doing their best to amplify the weight votes for them have (whether that be through gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc), not voting just increases that amplification. So whilst on paper not voting demonstrates your lack of confidence in either side (and let's be honest, without some real changes it's a two horse race), in reality that decision is primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) benefiting one side of politics.

If you're making the decision to not vote with full knowledge of what that means, realistically I think that's all someone can ask without getting into a discussion about trying to change your mind about that decision.