Equivocating the two means you think ‘some genocide’ and ‘lots of genocide’ are equally acceptable.
no. i don't find either of those acceptable. that doesn't make them the same. it just means that neither of them meets the bar of acceptability.
Any other vote is an admission of equivocation of the two front-runners.
false dichotomy
voting against genocide doesn't help genocide. this is pure doublespeak.
I don't believe any vote will reduce genocide. ballots don't stop bullets.
I'm going to vote for a candidate that wants no genocide.
it's literally double speak: war is peace, voting for genocide is antigenocide.
the only people I’ve seen unironically say “genocide joe” are white bougeyviks
you don't know anything about anyone's identity here: on the internet no one knows you're a dog.
instead of attacking people, try dealing with the ideas
OK so normally when you are accused of a crime, you hire a lawyer who advises you not to talk about the charges. Why? Because then you say dumb shit like “well it was manslaughter because he robbed me” when your defense was focused on casting doubt it was you who pulled the trigger.
this felt a little condescending, but i suppose some people might need to understand this.
Why is this even a discussion? This has all been thoroughly parsed.
i don't hang on every bit of news about trump.
i have to say that this does not seem cut-and-dry. i'm not interested in defending any politician, and trump less than most, but i also think that laws are bad and would err on the side of ignoring or abolishing the law in about every case. given this proclivity, my lack of expertise, and the lack of clarity, i'm of the opinion that this whole endeavor is a big waste of time and energy.
silencing your opposition is antidemocratic