Which part? The fact that only two candidates were actually viable options? Or the fact that (at least) one of the candidates wanted you to think you could vote for a third party and not vote against your own interests?
Two candidates on the ballot were viable whether you voted for them or not. If you didn’t vote for one of those two candidates, you voted against your own interests by not voting for your preferred candidate. If you did not have a preferred candidate during the presidential election, you weren’t paying attention.
It might have looked that way, but sadly it really didn’t. One of the two choices wanted you to believe that lie.
What makes you think so?
Which part? The fact that only two candidates were actually viable options? Or the fact that (at least) one of the candidates wanted you to think you could vote for a third party and not vote against your own interests?
No one is viable if you don’t vote for them. Why would I want to vote against my own interests?
Two candidates on the ballot were viable whether you voted for them or not. If you didn’t vote for one of those two candidates, you voted against your own interests by not voting for your preferred candidate. If you did not have a preferred candidate during the presidential election, you weren’t paying attention.
My preferred candidate was Jill Stein.
Cool. My preferred candidate was Mr. Rogers, and he had exactly as much chance of winning as Jill Fucking Stein.
Did you have a preference between the two actual candidates, Trump and Harris?