The crux of this is that these people feel sincerely entitled to a president who fits their personal preferences, rather than just trying to get the least fucked-up and harmful option in a busted system where bad interests have lots of power
The reason pundits like the contested convention thing is that it plays to their vanities: what if the smart people made a meritocratic decision about who’s best?
This is driven, in part, by being mostly isolated from negative reactions to their opinions over the years.
“Refusing to vote for then President arming a genocide of 40k and counting” is now a “personal preference” I guess. The vast majority of our votes are captive (like mine). It literally does not matter, so I can take my stand.
Are you on the New York Times editorial board or one of the other national pundits this discussion is about or did you just want to pop in here and talk about your super principles
Him: "pundits" -> Me [building on the reference to pundits]: "these people" -> You: [Getting huffy on your own behalf because of what I said about pundits, who aren't you]
And if you think what I've been posting about today is telling people to vote for Biden, you should probably just mute or block me because the meaning of the words isn't working for you
Oh, it's a personal preference. If your goal is stopping the genocide then your not voting doesn't make a difference in that, it just makes you feel better about yourself.
Oh, it'll make a difference. Trump urged Netanyahu to - and I quote - "finish the war fast" so he (and Kushner) can pave Gaza and built hotels. Some people are simply unable to imagine that things can get a lot worse.
