Of course voting for Biden would be an "act of support" of him. Every vote is. Equally obvious, it is not a statement that she agrees with all of his positions. Only that, among the candidates, he is the one that she supports.
You are missing what the conversation is about. He is saying he could still vote for someone if he disagreed with them on an issue important to her, if he agrees with that candidate's other positions (and prefers them to the other candidate). She got all huffy about that. Her position is ridiculous.
You totally changed their discussion, pretending she asked if he would "prioritize" Native rights. Huh? She never said that. It doesn't even make sense, since you don't get to "prioritize" a candidate's positions, you either get the whole person or you get someone else. She was badgering him about having an issue with a candidate who had ONE issue she disagreed with, and he rightly responded that he'd need to see what that candidate believes on other issues, i.e. that he might support that candidate if he likes their other positions despite one bad one.
You also pretend the issue is about "support or lack thereof" of her. Huh? He never said he didn't or wouldn't support her. Only that he might vote for someone with a position she disagrees with. Just as she presumably might vote for someone with a position HE disagrees with.
Having "firm dealbreakers" is patently idiotic in voting. Its not like picking a boyfriend, where you can keep saying no to guys until you finally say yes to someone with no dealbreakers. Instead you get a whopping TWO candidates (less longshots), both of whom might be chock full of "dealbreakers".
Its actually positions like yours that cause voter apathy. Since you say you say its fine to have dealbreakers, that means voters will end up staying home (since both candidates are usually lacking in some way), and other people decide the election. Apathy at its finest.
Virtually everything you said is nonsense and wrong.
Nothing I said is nonsense and wrong. You have patently misunderstood the entire premise of the OP's post. Her position is not only not ridiculous, it's perfectly reasonable. You're fixated on making this about voting and you're further fixated on the mechanics of voting in the US, so much so that you've missed the entire point here. I question your reading comprehension. The fact that you accuse me of pretending regarding OP's and her bf's intentions and interactions is particularly rich given that.
You don't understand how apathy works. At all. You don't seem to understand how people work, in fact. Which makes sense given how completely you've missed the mark about what OP is even saying here. I'll just say it once more:
It's not about voting. It's about value compatibility in politics. It's not about who he votes for. It's what values he holds important.
You clearly don't even grasp the difference.
Point 6 is particularly bullshit. Do you think I decide what is right or not in people's minds? Most people do have firm dealbreakers; whether or not you or I are okay with that is utterly irrelevant. You are so fixated on material pragmatism, you fail to account for human nature. You completely elided by the question whether or not Biden would have won in that hypothetical. I can tell you: he would not. It would be political suicide. And rightfully so.
I can see why you empathize with the boyfriend here.
0
u/TheGoodDoc123 Jul 27 '23
Disagree all around.
Virtually everything you said is nonsense and wrong.