Let's steel man your argument and say you're 100% correct. Throwing away your vote or not voting is still morally better than voting for someone who won't commit to not enabling a genocide.
And that's assuming your predicate is correct, which it's not.
Just drowning in votes here
I assure you, my heart is broken 💔
Does Baldur's Gate 3 count as a turn based RPG?
I think she's going to win
Maybe, but we've seen this before. No one thought he'd win the first time but pollsters strongly undercounted his supporters, who didn't respond to polls to begin with. Liberal arrogance played its role too, of course, as it usually does.
Pretty much all but the libertarian party. Turns out if enough people vote for a candidate they get elected. Weird huh?
Fun fact: The United States actually has more than 2 parties
The More You Know
Considering the inability of Buffalo police to exert the self-control needed to keep themselves from cracking the skull of a senior citizen I'm sure this will go great.
It's a valid and valuable question and for my part I actually regret grouping genetic with familial in my wording as a social family can be just as or more important than genetic family, something any of us but particularly those of us with shitty genetic family members can relate to.
That being said I think anthropology as a field can be as valuable as it can be ethical, so essentially the information from it can only be valuable if it comes from no contact or unintrusive contact. I think the toughest question is how to make that contact unintrusive though.
Is it just me or does the Marriott 'M' look like two towers falling over?
I thought clan implied genetic/familial relation whereas tribe implied purely social relation but that's just me, who is not an anthropologist.
So if you really think about it, threatening them at guillotine-point into dismantling as a class is really just best for everybody.
Also, relevant Wikipedia: Puyi