[worstspotgain]

You continue to claim that not voting or that voting for Hannibal Lecter is OK in that it's really some sort of a moonshot. After all you agree with me, right?

You do realize of course that if someone just wanted to get Hannibal Lecter elected, they would be making claims like these to suppress his opponent's vote?

[FeepingCreature]

I think there's a positive argument for voting for Hannibal Lecter. I don't think there's ever a non-lazy argument for not voting.

Either one candidate is better or the other. Make up your mind and do your duty.

And yeah, sure. I'm not sure why that's relevant though. The argument either holds or it doesn't.

[worstspotgain]

Of course it doesn't. The point is whether it's enough to sway any voters anyway. To keep them from helping the planet by preventing the biggest preventable catastrophe this century, in a couple of weeks.

[FeepingCreature]

Or otherwise to damn humanity to millions of deaths that would have been preventable.