plspls_pls_ stop calling each other fascists or astroturfers unless you have a thorough understanding of the uncommitted movement and what u.s. primaries are. there is so much blatant misunderstanding and misinfo going on it’s bad.
edit: if any loser dares call for an uncommitted vote in the general election? i will kick them in the balls (gender neutral) (in minecraft)
these first sentences of yours follow perfectly into the following thesis:
There is room to hold both truths at once. If Trump had not won in 2016, the supreme court would have an entirely different makeup, we’d still have Roe v Wade, and there would be fewer women and doctors fearing legal persecution for taking medically necessary action in cases like ectopic pregnancy.. You recognize that someone bad was going to get elected in 2016, but only one of those rolled back basic women’s rights. Harm reduction. And that’s just one example of many. There is nothing about voting a handful of times a year that precludes you from also also organizing and participating in mutual aid.
The candidate that does the least harm would probably be Cornell West or Jill Stein. voting for the senator who put in place the conditions for roe v Wade to be turned over, the senator who confirmed some of those very same justices, to be president does not reduce harm. if you won’t take it from me maybe it’ll take it from this guy
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
sounds like you should vote for cornell west or jill stein then :)
i had already read this article long before today and it still doesn’t give a compelling argument that voting can’t reduce harm, sorry.
harm reduction is a specific strategy, and voting is not harm reduction.
okay if you want to just call it a semantics thing that’s fair. i’ll keep doing it though because it reduces harm. :)