The point isn’t that there’s a magical “Correct Amount” of genocide that is acceptable.

But there is an amount you were able to accept, an acceptable amount, if you will.

there was however an option that made an already horrible scenario even worse

No. The genocide was just as bad under Democrats, you were just a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. In that sense, it's better that Trump won, because at least liberals acknowledge what's happening when he does it, rather than downplaying and denying it.

And that's a real killer for the "lesser evil argument": that the people making it seem to lose the ability to appraise their evil correctly.

but at least she wasn’t outright planning to build a fucking resort atop the mass graves. (Trump Gaza ring any bells to you?)

Jesus Christ. You people really do only care about appearances and don't give a shit about human life. She also planned on exterminateing the Palestinians and building on the mass graves, but because it would just be fascist settlements and not something garish like a resort, that's fine?

Again, the lesser evil argument falls flat when everyone espousing it loses their ability to identify what evil is.

By the way, I’m a transwoman, I’m seeing ciswomen get awarded for “Standing up” against my kind, as my existence is being publically reframed as an affront to women’s rights in what I can only imagine is the greatest dream TERF-kind ever had. This wouldn’t be happening under Kamala.

And there is: it's all fine so long as you personally aren't on the receiving end of the genocide.

When the Democratic party decides that Trans people are a necessary sacrifice and joins the Republicans in calling for their repression, are you still going to be demanding everyone votes for them?