NauticalNoodle

By claiming people must vote for the "lesser evil" and nothing else then the party of "lesser evil" implicitly paves the way for people to stop showing up for them, which to that side paves the way for their greater evil to eventually win. -If you think that's selfish and entitled, then that's your prerogative, but if you want people support your candidate then you have to get them to want to support your candidate, be it selfish or not.

No, not voting is simply not voting. More to the point, not voting is "explicitly" saying you don't care enough to spend the time or energy on casting a vote or you couldn't vote. A person might think it implicitly* says "either choice is equally good", but then I could argue that the Democrat party implicitly considers "either choice equally good" because they didn't attempt to earn the votes.

When it's easier to not vote than come out to vote, then the responsibility is on the candidates to convince their potential constituents to turn out for them.

I remember our last election. Most people dont even vote for the "plans and promises." They vote for the perceived "lesser evil." -It's incredibly irritating for those of us who care about policy.

I'm pretty sure Chaplin was pissed about it too.

*legal system.

rarely there is ever any "justice."

Voting third-party.

Democracy and general Egalitarianism is so 2008. Authoritarianism is what's hot now.

40 year old machine designed to play chess*

If I don't remember to take them off in my car(or I'm just feeling carefree) then Ill wear them inside because as long as it's well-lit I can see better with my prescription sunglasses. If it's dim then I do that thing wear I lift them slightly to peak out from under them to focus on important visual details like prices.

I remember seeing a similar photo/story of the CBP reinforcements deployed to Portland OR back during the height of the BLM protests.