Everyone who is on the fence or doesn’t feel like they need to vote are just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
I agree with your first sentence, but honestly your second sentence doesn’t matter. No one has the right or ethical high ground to command or threaten another person to vote the way they want, regardless of whether they sympathize with that person’s position.
Actual Trump voters, many of whom are voting against their own best interests as well as yours and mine, have the right to make their uninformed/hateful/self-harming/selfish (pick one or more as applicable) vote, and so do folks whose vote we disagree with for other reasons.
We all think our reasons for voting the way we are (including abstaining) are valid, and at the level of the voting booth it seems to me that we have to respect everyone else’s as valid even when we don’t feel they are.
If we do not do so, I don’t see how that doesn’t lead to either:
a) commanding another to vote as you desire
or
b) thought policing people
I find either of those to be unacceptable for any purpose.
My perspective is that no one has the right to infringe on the rights of others, and to me any act that facilitates Trump entering the white house creates a greater infringement on human rights than any vote that facilitates Harris.
These are things that shouldn’t even need to be decided by an election, they should just be codified and not up for vote at all, but here we are.
Persuade all you want.
Threatening/intimidating/commanding people to vote in a particular way is not OK though. It’s not something where the end justifies the means, and it’s a pandora’s box that should not be opened. OP would be rightly called a threat if a conservative version of it was posted. It’s akin to this, minus the power dynamic.
