You’re putting up a false-equivalency. It may well be that a bunch Ukrainian soldiers die and Russia takes over anyway. It might be that they don’t put up a fight and others step in. (Highly unlikely, but not a forgone conclusion.) There are other scenarios that might play out.
On the other hand, either Trump or Harris absolutely will be the next POTUS. Which one do you want it to be? Answer the question this time… no explanations required for your choice. Which one do you choose?
It’s not a false equivalency. If I don’t vote - the matter in question here - it’s not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I’m concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they’d better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.
It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don’t say “you want soldiers to die” when describing someone who thinks it’s a necessary risk to defend one’s country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn’t make any difference to the way we talk about it. It’s about intent. I’m not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I’d vote for him. I’m aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.
What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must “want” one of them. That’s just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I “want” neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.
I know you think you’ve set up some clever ‘gothca’, but it’s just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually “want” one of them. Anyone can see that.
Either Harris gets fewer votes, or the Democrats get the message that supporting genocide is OK with the electorate, that it’s a choice they can make without electoral repercussions.
One of those two things will happen.
Do you “want” to give the message to the Democrats that genocide is OK by you?
Or is it rather that you’d be prepared to risk that to avoid a Trump presidency?
I’m not required to want either.
“Either some Ukrainian soldiers die, or Putin takes over Ukraine, that’s the reality”…
“Oh! So you want Ukrainian soldiers to die!”
Being prepared to risk something is not the same as actively promoting that thing. This is not up for debate, it’s a basic fact.
You’re putting up a false-equivalency. It may well be that a bunch Ukrainian soldiers die and Russia takes over anyway. It might be that they don’t put up a fight and others step in. (Highly unlikely, but not a forgone conclusion.) There are other scenarios that might play out.
On the other hand, either Trump or Harris absolutely will be the next POTUS. Which one do you want it to be? Answer the question this time… no explanations required for your choice. Which one do you choose?
It’s not a false equivalency. If I don’t vote - the matter in question here - it’s not a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. Harris might still win but only by a very very narrow margin.That would be a great outcome as far as I’m concerned. A Harris presidency, but clear message that votes cannot be relied on and if they want a safer win next time, they’d better drop the genocide support. Harris might also change policy. Very.much like the examples you gave, other options exist.
It remains a risk not a consequence. And very much like soldiers dying. Have you ever heard of a war in which no soldiers died? No. Yet we still don’t say “you want soldiers to die” when describing someone who thinks it’s a necessary risk to defend one’s country. The likelihood of the risk coming about clearly doesn’t make any difference to the way we talk about it. It’s about intent. I’m not aiming for a Trump presidency. If I was, I’d vote for him. I’m aiming to avoid normalising genocide. A collateral risk in that aim is a Trump presidency. A risk I think is worth it for the objective.
What is utterly false is suggesting that because there are two options I must “want” one of them. That’s just garbage. My preferences are not determined by the options offered. I could want neither options, or genuinely not care which, or like both equally. In this case I “want” neither. I am prepared to accept either. I will accept the risk of a Trump presidency.
I know you think you’ve set up some clever ‘gothca’, but it’s just nonsense to say that because there are two options I must actually “want” one of them. Anyone can see that.
Or we could look at it this way.
Either Harris gets fewer votes, or the Democrats get the message that supporting genocide is OK with the electorate, that it’s a choice they can make without electoral repercussions.
One of those two things will happen.
Do you “want” to give the message to the Democrats that genocide is OK by you?
Or is it rather that you’d be prepared to risk that to avoid a Trump presidency?