The analogy kind of falls apart since she is not limited to this guy and Chad. She’s free to choose nothing at all. With Trump vs Biden, there’s no viable third option, and having no president is not one of the options. So the “Trump is worse” argument becomes viable simply because you do have to choose one of them.

Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?

You can tactically vote for Biden to avoid Trump and still take actions to dismantle the system.

So the woman in our scenario should decide to choose the “Nice Guy” tactically?

No, I’m saying that your analogy breaks down.

I don’t think it does. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.

You’re free to do nothing, but smart people choose to minimize harm when there are only bad choices in front of them.

Who said I’m “doing nothing”? Voting isn’t doing anything. Only actions outside the ballot matter.

Voting isn’t doing anything? Did you not see what happened when Trump got to pick three Supreme Court justices? Roe is gone dude. This stuff matters.

It really doesn’t. This is the momentum of your country either way. Or did you forget that your democrats had chances to put Supreme Court justices and they just…didn’t?