Aged Like Milk

Here's the thing though - US voters went into an election with a binary winner-takes-all choice for the head of their executive branch in a country where the executive branch wields an immense amount of power. Some chose to not take part because neither candidate appealed to them. Many made that choice due to a candidate's foreign policy positions. It is very reasonable to assume that those are votes that would have not gone to the more conservative/regressive side.

Result: popular vote went to the regressives. And since foreign policy issues could very well have been a cause in this (i.e. people basing their choice to not vote on a candidate's impacts on foreign populations), the end result is kind of ironic... The death and misery that will result from funding changes in things like PEPFAR, USAID, US funding contributions to various UN programs, refugee programs, etc. will far surpass anything happening in Gaza. Nevermind the incredible economic impacts (and very real resulting human consequences) of tariffs on people in so-called "shithole countries" - like me.

And that's not even mentioning the totally foreseeable domestic consequences that US voters are now seeing.

So tell me again how choosing not to vote in the US presidential election was a morally sound choice?