Depends where the cancer is doesn't it now?

Not really, no. Less cancer is always better than more cancer, no matter where it is.

You do know that everyone has a bit of cancer, right? Zero cancer just isn't a thing that happens in an organism composed of trillions of cells. Likewise, zero exploitation and suffering just isn't a thing that happens in a population composed of billions of people.

A little cancer is handled by immune reaction, a little more by medicine and surgery, a lot kills the organism. A little exploitation is handled by social reaction, a little more by political action, a lot kills the population.

No matter where the cancer is, less is better than more. We were in the treatable stage and you clowns insisted on skipping chemo.

No cancer is better, less cancer is not better - it's still cancer. But if you're willing to accept that, go for it; Enjoy your cancer.

And why are you comparing it with a 'harmless' amount of cancer that is naturally removed and not an issue instead of what any normal person thinks of when they hear cancer?

How does that work with electors anyway? I'm under the impression that if you don't live in a swing state your vote is basically a formality.

Zero cancer just isn't a thing that happens in an organism composed of trillions of cells. Likewise, zero exploitation and suffering just isn't a thing that happens in a population composed of billions of people.

No cancer isn't a thing. It's only "better" in an unobtainable, hypothetical, entirely delusional sense. Refusing to settle for less than impossible things is just plain stupid. We were managing with less societal cancer. You skipped chemo because it makes you feel yucky, and now it's metastasized. Are you proud of yourself?

Or, and please hear me out, because you're not going to like it.

The Republican party are directly responsible for putting Trump as the nominee.

The people who voted Republican are directly responsible.

The Democrat party are indirectly responsible by presenting such a poor-looking alternative. "We're not Trump" is not enough.

The people who chose not to vote are the least responsible of all.

You're directing your anger in the wrong direction. It's the corruption within the system you need to be tearing down, not some poor sod on the internet.

What's the plan - to scare them into voting the way you want in the next election? To argue with and win over the millions of extra voters the Democrats needed?

The problem isn't with the people who saw that both sides were bad options - it's with the Democrat party for being a bad option.

No normal person when hearing cancer would think 'harmless everyday mutation' and not 'deadly growing thing'.

There's no difference. Cancer is cancer. Sometimes it's manageable by the immune system alone, sometimes it's fully and irreversibly malignant in multiple organs, usually it's somewhere between. There is no zero cancer, the best we get is small amounts. There is no zero exploitation, the best we get is small amounts.

Sometimes we get the best we can get. Usually, we get a treatable amount. With treatment, the growing thing can be combated before it becomes irreversibly deadly. But skip those treatments because they make you nauseous, and the deadly thing grows bigger.

You couldn't get zero exploitation (obviously, because that's not possible) so you skipped the treatment and now it's growing deadlier. You might as well have skipped chemo to huff essential oils. That's what you look like to the rest of us, the person skipping chemo to treat their cancer with incense and good vibes.

Its exactly how it works, whether you like it or not.

According to every conversation I've ever had with a tankie that leaves you nobody to vote for, because EVERYONE is a capitalist.

CCP? Capitalist. Commie Russia? Capitalist. North Korea? Also capitalist.

What if they were in a state where their vote wouldn't have even remotely changed the electoral vote outcome? It's a strawman blame game you're playing to feel smug about yourself in a generalized approach.

You don't know anyone's personal situation yet you have no qualm placing blame for a worldwide issue on a single individual.

Good for you. You shamed someone for not solving the worlds climate issues with a single fucking vote that may not have even made any difference at all.

Yes. And even in a swing state, it may take a million or more votes to swing it.

The few states with apportioned electors are the outlier.

They just want internet points and the brief satisfaction of feeling smug by being a piece of shit to someone online.

History shows that if the Dems regain full control, they will not reverse all this carnage 100%. They will reverse maybe 25% of it and pretend the rest isn't happening and maybe claim they don't have enough control and we'll hear the term bipartisan.

That's why I don't even fucking vote anymore. When they DO have some ability to improve things, they barely do. Biden proved to be exactly the slow-moving watered-down change I expected.

Fuck em all. And fuck you when you tell me how wrong I am. I really don't give a fuck.

Put up serious change on the ticket or I'll just roll my eyes again.

On what planet do tankies go around calling those countries capitalist? You're dreaming mate.

The top part is true, but reversing 25% is something and it's not a constant flow of more carnage. If you don't give a fuck, then you are basically pro carnage since you are doing nothing to stop it, but fuck me right?

Also you can vote for who Dems up on the ticket in the primary. New York voters showed the rest of the country that it's possible.

I'm glad I live in a place where this would give you almost no info.

Because there's more than two options.

Your vote is a formality until it swings the state. What is a swing state changes every election. You never truly know until after you voted so vote every time.

Just for the sake of discussion, I think there's a real argument to be made that reversing 25% is actually worse than doing nothing, because it makes people complacent. "Controlled opposition", if you will.

I'm not saying that's necessarily always the case, there are obviously tangible benefits to reducing some of the damage. But if it comes with allowing even more damage to be done later, because the changes are superficial and don't address the ways in which the right extremists can manipulate the political system, then people might be fooled into thinking the system still works and the long run consequences would be even more severe than if they realised it doesn't.

And if you fully realise that the political system doesn't work then I don't think it entirely makes sense to get on someone's case about voting or not. Not that they shouldn't, but there are much bigger issues.

in the context of the US, if you (generally) chose not to vote in the 2024 election then you are guilty of doing nothing to prevent the atrocities committed by the Trump administration

This is really a false dichotomy. There are so many other ways to fight against the atrocities. Given how enthusiastically the democrats are cooperating with the fascist agenda, if you didn't vote but you uploaded some info to one of those ice watch apps, or went and protested in LA, or shuffled papers to slow down their progress in your federal job, you probably already did more tangible good than someone who did the other way around.