slurpyslop

lead for emergency pencils

They are two different kinds of single issue voters.

this all started from mental gymnastics, and you're currently trying to straight up claim that single issue voters are in general effective for the republicans but ineffective for the democrats because...reasons...?

I'll say it explicitly: voting for a candidate doesn't mean you support any of the candidates positions

For the record, you're still strawmanning my position, as you have been the entire time. I don't know whether this is out of malice or a plain failure of comprehension, but—again—voting in support of something is not the same as supporting it. Your neo-nazis are voting in support of Trump's specific brand of racism.

That said, your response to the hypothetical means you believe your intention is the only important thing in how you exercise your voting right. In which case, what are we doing here? People who aren't voting for Biden because of his stance on Palestine aren't intending to get Trump elected, so they're blameless, right?

Tell that to the Rohingya.

The US also didn't save them, so I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

Biden is not supporting The Genocide™ that people started paying attention to once it became a trendy thing to talk about on Tiktok

It became "trendy" more or less immediately at the point that it started happening.

The ICC has never stopped a genocide in its entire existence

What genocide has the US stopped since the creation of the ICC?

If you can't name one, then literally anything Biden could do up to and including nuking Palestine "wouldn't have made a difference anyway."

UN action is equally useless

UN action is useless because of veto powers. Whatever the UN wants to do, somebody will veto it.

In this instance, the person vetoing that action is Biden.

Israel and Netanyahu have made it clear that they will continue the invasion into Gaza with or without US military support, so any arms we may have given Israel have no impact on their willingness to wage war.

I mean I agree with this, but why would you continue to send arms once they've demonstrated what they'll be used for unless you kind of don't care about it?

What other specious evidence of aggressive support do you have?

If you can honestly look at the sum total of Biden's actions and go "nah he's trying his best to stop it" then there's not much point in continuing this discussion, since we're essentially in two different realities at this point.

As a last point, voting for a candidate doesn't mean you support all of that candidates actions or views.

Again, you might hate genocide, but objectively, voting for a candidate aggressively enabling genocide is voting in support of that genocide

If somebody hates racism, but gets tricked into voting for Trump by Black Voices for Trump, would you say they're voting in support of racism or not?

you disagree about that one point

It's almost comical that you can be so flippant about genocide. "It's just one genocide guys, come on."

That's why Republicans do so well; Republican voters have one or two issues they agree with passionately

So you're arguing it's good to be a single issue voter?

On the other hand progressives/leftists/whatever pick a hill to die on

So you're arguing it's bad to be a single issue voter?

i'd say sanctioning the icc for attempting to stop said genocide is being pretty aggressive about it, as is continuing to block any un-led action, as is continuing to send arms

which do you disagree with?

• biden is supporting genocide
• voting for a hypothetical candidate supporting genocide is voting in support of genocide

The rest of your comment is inane prattle.

i know you wanted to do the ol' switcheroo but it doesn't really work when you responded to everything in my comment

palestinians are screwed either way, friend

voting for Biden doesn't mean you support it anymore than if you do not vote

cool, but that's not what i said

i said voting for biden is voting in support of genocide

you might hate genocide, but objectively, voting for a candidate aggressively enabling genocide is voting in support of that genocide

the rest of your comment is just filler

lmfao

the first result is the wikipedia article, which as we've discussed, is several thousand words long

i'm not trying to justify my use of language, i'm explaining why you're wrong, and you're responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary

you're not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you're saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary

those are two completely different things and it's astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with "i'm sure you can do better than that"