Objection

Now go ahead and respond to me without answering my criticisms (since you cannot, since they are objectively correct) and keep focusing on who (you think) I am, rather than what I say.

Called it.

I respect your decision. But I'm not going to do the same. If Palestinians can be sacrificed today, I can be sacrificed tomorrow. If a line cannot be drawn somewhere, then we will all be fucked, and this is where I have drawn mine.

But you already agreed that for swing state voters, there are effectively only 2 choices

Hold up. All I agreed with is that in this election, it wasn't realistic for a third party to win. You're trying to take that as meaning there's no reason to vote third party. As I explained, it's possible for third parties to wield influence, and giving them more votes gives them more ability to do that.

There are effectively two possible winners but that's not the same as there being effectively two choices. The question isn't "Do you think a third party can win this election," the question is, "Do you think voting third party cause any positive effects?" to which my answer is yes.

Again, you agreed that escape is effectively not an option through voting.

I did no such thing. You're twisting my words and jumping to conclusions.

Moving toward the side of the room with fewer flames is objectively the better choice while you work on establishing an escape.

Why on earth would you stand in the middle and let the fire decide?

I'm amazed that you managed to miss the point that hard. I don't give a shit which fire is more comfortable to burn to death in. If there's no way out, then I will still try to wail on the walls until I can't anymore.

Kamala is the only acceptable

Kamala is fundamentally unacceptable. Again, you're just acting like things are established when they very much are not.

Only if you ascribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, which is a ridiculous ideology.

Suppose someone has rounded up 10 people, and they say, "I'll kill all of these people, unless you kill one of them for me." Is it moral to do that? How about if you do it and he says, "You work for me now, go round up 10 more people for me so I can do this again, or else I'll kill 20." Still moral?

Gazans do not support the people whose bombs are dropping on them right now, no.

I am not helping there be more bombs and more dead.

Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza believe in applying lesser-evilism to the US election? I think it's the opposite, it's a very easy view to hold when the people dying under the lesser evil are kept safely out of sight and out of mind. It's much harder to cradle a dead child in your arms and say, "Well, it could be worse."

If the democrats started losing every election because of the greens, then I expect what would happen is that they'd start supporting voting reform, and if that happened, I'd be willing to vote for them so that they can implement it. But currently, while there are a handful who do, they are incentivized not to support it, since FPTP benefits them.

Because one being better than the other is not the same as being an acceptable choice. If I'm in a burning building, what fundamentally needs to happen is that I escape. You can argue that the flames on one side of the room are higher than the flames on the other side of the room, but I don't care, because if I stay in the room I'll die. The only thing that matters is finding the door.

You asked if I thought a third party could win this election, and the answer is no. But could a third party win a future election? The answer to that is yes, maybe. The results of this election will inform voters in future elections of whether a third party is viable. The most important thing is increasing the chances of getting to an acceptable outcome, everything else is secondary to that goal.

In the meantime, voting third party can influence things in other ways. If the Democrats can only win by getting a third party's endorsement, then they can potentially be brought to the bargaining table.

No. I don't live in a swing state, but even if I did, I wouldn't. However, I can respect their decision as long as they respect mine.

Yes.

I'm not a psychic, so it's difficult to say, but I will answer Kamala since you are so insistent on unambiguous answers.

Kamala winning, at least in the short term, but it does set a bad precedent if it means the democrats learn they can support genocide and get away with it.