Lets check:

statement 1: statement of my request. possibly in mock incredulity and surprise.
statement 2: statement of his “intent”
statement 3: negation of the disparaging mark to which the request was “please square the circle”.
statement 4: further negation of the post you made.

So, if your post #41 was not what you said, who said it and why?

I was just making an assumption based on your stated philosophy.

I do not believe your not voting (if you don’t vote) is either wrong or evil.

In America you don’t have to vote – it is your choice.

So if two “evil” candidates are running, it’s a fair option to not vote for either, potentially causing the election results to be nullified and a new election held. Which continues until a new candidate whom the electorate feels is not evil and is competent enough scores a high enough percentage of possible votes and then the polling stops, a winner is declared, and the transition of office takes place.

Nice scheme. I would add something like “instant run-off voting” and compulsory voting to the mix…

But, sadly, we don’t have that kind of system in America. It’s “Vote for the Democrat OR vote for the Republican” and that’s all you get. Sucks, but that’s what it is. We can complain about how “evil” the existing system is as much as we want in the meantime.

And THIS is why your politics is massively corrupt and that there’s no actual use for information with the electorate. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is complain that one candidate is worse (for anything you can think of) than the other, and you then insist they must vote against them.

So Republicans are voting for Trump, despite his insanity, because HILARY will steal their guns and ban christianity in schools, where TRUMP will let them keep their protection against villains and let their kids go to heaven.

ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for him to be sane on ANYTHING as long as “YOU MUST vote against them, because they’re WORSE than this candidate!”.

You must never vote!”

Apparently you and brainstorms think this is wrong and evil.

Please square this circle.

“I’m sorry, but the U.S. will not allow the Office of the President of the United States to go unfilled as a valid consequence of an election.”

Correct, but orthogonal. Whether or not the POTS is unfilled or not, ”Voting for the lesser evil is still accepting evil.”.

It doesn’t matter if the POTS cannot remain unfilled when it comes to the value of pi. The price of tomatoes doesn’t depend on whether the role of POTS can be vacant.

And whether voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil is likewise independent of the political requirements of any office in the USA or any other country of the world.

I agree with you.

I would add that elections are all about who gets the most votes.

That’s only valid if “No one is to occupy the White House for 4 years” is a valid voting option. It is not valid.”

No, it’s valid no matter what.

I’m sorry, but the U.S. will not allow the Office of the President of the United States to go unfilled as a valid consequence of an election.

Elections in the U.S. are relative, not absolute comparisons/judgments/decisions.

Elections in the U.S. are not contests of “who is evil”, “who is not evil”, and your arguments which assume such don’t hold water.

It’s either “voting for the better candidate” or “voting against the worse candidate”, not “don’t vote for evil”.

And who are you to pass absolute judgment and declare that a given candidate is “evil”? You haven’t even defined what that term means!

(Your argument about Mussolini and Stalin is so outrageously fallacious I won’t even bother to address it.)

You must never vote!

That’s only valid if “No one is to occupy the White House for 4 years” is a valid voting option. It is not valid.”

No, it’s valid no matter what. Even if there are 10,000 ACTUALLY GOOD candidates, voting for the one who is merely “less evil” is STILL WRONG. Even if the bigger evil gets in, voting for the lesser evil is STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.

I mean, how many damn times can I phrase it? Voting for a lesser evil is voting for an evil. It’s less evil than voting the bigger evil, which is also evil, but it’s not “not evil” merely because someone worse exists!

If you enacted a totalitarian state and ran it like Mussolini, YOU WOULD STILL BE A BAD LEADER, even if you pointed out that Stalin was worse!

Here’s what happens when you vote for the lesser evil: you reward evil.

Someone who is even less evil will gain less power (since part of the reason for this type of malfeasant character is to abuse the power of the position) and more responsibilities, and will lose out to the manipulations that the other, even lesser, evils can practice with a clear conscience.

So you close the gap between the bigger evil and the lesser, and good never gets in, because they run at a disadvantage to begin with and have a harder time if they do get in, and still have to stop evil undermining their position for the next election cycle.

Voting for the lesser evil rewards evil.

And if the only voters are those who will go for the greater evil, this will be a catastrophe, BUT ONE YOUR COUNTRY WILL SURVIVE, and they will work to weed out evil, because they now see what happens more clearly.

It’s only when a smoker finds lung cancer that they have a REAL incentive to stop smoking.