Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Not saying this is the case, just maybe challenging your premise as an absolute.

Let’s say someone is genociding, and the election opponent says “I want to also genocide, but harder and smarter.” Your moral obligation is stronger against the incumbent?

Is it because the incumbent is already complicit and the other guy might not be as bad? I don’t understand the moral logic of the possible absolutism here.

Shouldn’t the imperative be to reduce suffering? How does getting the lesser evil out of office help the situation?

You're supposed to vote based on actions, not statements.

Any jackass can say anything. What matters is what they actually have done.

Never reward incorrect action.

Which genocide are you referring to, Yemen or Sudan?

The one you're paying for.

I can assure you that the country that issued my passport is not funding any genocides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com