This is such a disappointing take honestly. Using A and B parties to make your argument sound more logical than it is. The Democrats have not in any shape or form regretted their actions, nor are they denouncing Israel and Netanyahu, Biden made his unwavering support for them abundantly clear after the ICC arrest warrant for him.
By my own definition voting C is definitely not an evil act, what kind of twisted logic is this? I don't want to vote for a party that fully supports a genocide and has done nothing to reverse republican, neoliberal policies. I'm voting for someone that I believe will fix things and I think everyone should do the same if we want to see change at some point.
Like I've already said about the poopcake and shit sandwich and the lesser of two evils(you kind of say it yourself), at some point, both parties are so indistinguishable and so very far away from any ideal and vision that I have for the world, that my conscience doesn't allow me to vote for them. Both are genocidal, both are neoliberal, dismantling the welfare state and increasing exponentially the profits of the 1%. If you vote for the lesser evil, it just means that you think one is at least a little bit satisfactory, to which I couldn't be more opposed.
Why should I keep to myself my opinions on voting? Do you not like other people expressing their opinions and throwing shade on your beloved democrats? Why shouldn't more people realize that both are extremely evil and bad and shouldn't be supported? I am not mad because I don't have a strategy, I am mad that people still support people committing and funding genocides first and foremost. I don't get mad at your kindergarten logic that is the first thing that pops to anyone's mind when they realize that maybe they shouldn't vote blue. Why should you try to help others and not me? I'm not confused or mad, I know very well what I am doing.
Btw I explicitly said I am voting based on my beliefs and ideology and you try to reduce my criteria as "feelings", as if anyone's voting and beliefs are somehow detached from feelings or that I don't use logic. Imagine thinking that supporting ideas and values you've extensively and carefully talked, read and thought about for years is somehow inferior to your highly sophisticated: blue no matter who.
I'll say it once again to make it clear: our difference is very simply that you are satisfied with the Democrats in power, while I am not. Any problems that arise are just not a deal-breaker to you, while they very much are to me.
My issue with nuclear energy isn't that it's dangerous or that it's inherently bad. The world needs a stable source of energy that compensates for wind and solar fluctuations anyways. For the current realistic alternatives that's either going to be nuclear or coal/oil/natural gas. We have nothing else for this purpose, end of discussion.
My problem is the assumption underlying this discussion about nuclear energy that it somehow will solve all of our problems or that it will somehow allow us to continue doing business as usual. That's categorically not the case. The climate crisis has multiple fronts that need to be dealt with and the emissions is just one of them. Even if we somehow managed to find the funds and resources to replace all non renewable energy with nuclear, we would still have solved just 10% of the problem, and considering that this cheap new energy will allow us to increase our activities and interventions in the planet, the situation will only worsen.
Nuclear energy is of course useful, but it's not the answer. Never has technology been the answer for a social and political issue. We can't "science and invent" our way out of this, it's not about the tech, it's about who decides how it will be used, who will profit from it, who and how much will be affected by it etc. If you want to advocate for a way to deal with the climate crisis you have to propose a complete social and political plan that will obviously include available technologies, so stop focusing on technologies and start focusing on society and who takes the decisions.
One simple example would be the following: no matter how green your energy is, if the trend in the US is to have increasingly bigger cars and no public transport, then the energy demands will always increase and no matter how many nuclear plants you build, they will only serve as an additional source and not as a replacement. So no matter how many plants you build, the climate will only deteriorate.
This is literally how the people in charge have decided it will work. Any new developing energy source that is invented serves only to increase the consumption, not to replace previous technologies. That's the case with solar and wind as well. So all of this discussion you all make about nuclear Vs oil or whatever is literally irrelevant. The problem is social and political, not technological.