You’re getting one of them, regardless, so why not choose the “lesser of the two evils”?
You can’t honestly say they’re both as bad as each other, so abstinence is petulance. And, much good may it do you.
We only get what we're served, dishonestly and I'm sick of it, quite honestly. True journalism for the masses is dead, co-opted by billionaires with agendas. This is exactly why you don't get objective information about either opposing politicians on the same channels. You get partisan views and opinions.
So, if there are billionaires funding both opposing parties to work their agenda with a tiny bit of difference in what they offer, why aren't they fundamentally the same?
I'll give you one example of the twisted and complicated nature of politics and you tell me the lies here:
Look at the Clintons formerly partying with the guy that used to donate to their campaigns who they describe as an "existential crisis to democracy". Most of them that are classed as neolibs or neocons, coming from slightly different positions anywhere in the west, all mingle at some point relative to what country they're in.
Warmongers don't represent me, no matter the lipstick you put on the pig. Never have, never will. If they are backing regime change and destroying innocents for the donors interest whilst I enjoy healthcare on offer, some idiots claim that's a reason I should vote for one of them?? Nah.
And all that shit about "existential crisis", "lesser of two evils" and "vote blue no matter who" are things that came down the pipeline from focus gurus and you scooped it up because they're buzzwords repeated ad nauseum to get through to the voter.
Whether here or in the US, if I don't want to cast my vote for evil scum or
half evil scum, I'm good as evil is evil to me.
But thanks, anyway.