Well sorry but that's not how logic works

It is, actually. It's very simple: I don't support genocide so I don't vote for genociders. Perfectly logical. Despite your condescension, you have yet to point out a flaw in my logic, though you are making inaccurate statements about my positron.

Our givens are:

• Trump or Harris will win the White House
• There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can't win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House

You have already failed to capture the basics of voting. You can also vote for other parties, write in a name in some states, and simply not vote on that line or at all. For such a condescending response we aren't even cracking high school civics territory yet. But you are revealing that you follow current party line talking points. The party in power, doing the genocide. Bad look, there.

Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)

Questionable. Manic JOYous appropriating genocidal neoliberal cop that gets no resistance from people like yourself vs. fading racist grandpa huckster that you presumably at least performatively might do something against.

The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.

Wrong. Many who vote third party have never considered themselves Democrats. Most Americans do not identify with either party.

Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening

Dems shouldn't commit genocide.

Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green

Trump would benefit specifically from votes (in swing states) for himself and a lack of votes (in swing states) for Harris. This can come from a number of premises but sure one of them is that someone that had planned to vote Harris votes for Stein instead. Thank you for this deep insight.

Voting "against genocide

Oh? Is it not a genocide? Is the Biden-Harrus administration not an essential piece of it? Why the scare quotes, liberal?

is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it)

Genocide is the systematic destruction of a people, it is as bad as it gets. There is no meaningful difference than the status quo and anything Trump could "accelerate". You aren't going to lesser evil genocide. Your genocider is also actually genociding, which should always be opposed, including compared to your hypotheticals. I could expound on how your framing is politically illiterate, including your normalization of genocide, but really this is not a complex situation.

and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women

To the extent that is true, it's already happening under Dems. They just pander to those groups at the same time they reinforce reaction and marginalization.

If you had a different voting system I'd agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don't have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism.

Wait, that's it!? I thought you were going to show me logic, not a series of barely-connected talking points. You didn't discuss the voting system!

Anyways I am correct regardless of the voting system. Though I will note that I have told you not to vote for genociders. I did not tell you to vote third party. I'm setting up a very low bar but liberals are so pro-genocide that they tend to fall to clear it.

So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.

That would be silly, as I would have voted for neither genocidal candidate. Blame yourself for normalizing genocide. For accepting a genocidal candidate. For advocating for a genocidal candidate during their genocide. Do you see how obviously complicit this makes you? I work against all of those things. Your "logic", which is to say bog standard lesser evil tropes, has gotten you to flip reality on its head.

I could expound on this topic but you would need to express curiosity or present a coherent case.

Infinity. Ending their war crimes requires change and change requires building forces against them. Join a local anti-imperialist org and get to work!

Voting for genociders means supporting their genocide. Not voting for genociders means not supporting genocide.

Might want to check your math there, chief.

You should vote for neither and should spend your efforts and time thinking about this to work against them and for our mutual liberation.

Smart cutie pies?

Combining confident posturing with aversive and dishinest behsvior is often entertaining, but I think it has about run its course in this thread.

If you would like to engage in good faith in the future I would be happy to have a discussion. But I will be ignoring genocide-apologetic bad faith behavior in this comment chain.

I'll take that to mean you don't see the irony.

It must be a pretty well-worn habit for you by now, to simply ignore things you don’t like.

I wonder if you see the irony in this given the last 2 comments above. This is where substanceless posturing always leads. Just vibes and self-contradiction.

I responded directly to what they said re: there being multiple issues they want to weigh. That was their response up me challenging complicity in genocide and asking why the person I was responding to was sheepdogging for genociders. They are trying yo be euphemistic and retreat to the thought-terminsting clichés that reinforce complicity in genocide, which also means avoiding even using the word. So I recontextualized their attempt to decontextualize while still directly addressing it.

Please feel free to tell me which specific parts you would like to see addressed or responded to. I certainly already replied to the first sentence, which was the main point of deflection.

What is more important than supporting and normalizing genocide?

It's quite productive, actually.

Sorry, best she can do is manically JOYOUS endorsements from Republican war criminals.