B) We're not going to fix the fact we don't have a Pope. It's only been 68 years without a Pope -- we'll be fine!

So ... that's not really accurate.  Two problems here.

1) Nobody says "we'll be fine" without a legitimate Pope.  YOU, the R&R, don't say we'll be fine even WITH these current Conciliar popes ... except for the likes of a +Fellay, who's accepted this as the new normal.  Only his ilk among R&R would say "we'll be fine", but none of the Resistance types think this is anywhere near fine.

2) Non-conclavist sedevacantists don't say that we ARE NOT going to fix this, as you claim, but only that we CAN NOT fix this, that it's out of our hands, barring divine intervention.

So that puts us in the same boat as the non-Fellay-ite R&R who just like you realize that things WILL NOT BE FINE, whether we have "no Pope" or we have these garbage Modernist "Popes", we'll not be fine.  In fact, what's the difference?  So it's better to have a destroyer Pope who teaches poison, destroys faith and morals, who wrecks Catholic piety by imposing this garbage Protestant excuse for a Mass?  That's akin to what people cynically will say about government, when it shuts down, that we're better off without government open.  Same thing here, where we could rightly say, to Our Lord, "Well, with Popes like this, thanks, but no thanks.  We'll take our chances without them."  What exactly puts you in a superior position that way.

YOU say we CANNOT elect a Pope because there already is one and there's nothing we can do to get rid of him.

Sedeprivationists say we CANNOT elect a Pope because, even though he's lost his authority, he legally holds the office and there's nothing we can do to get rid of him.

(Many) Non-Conclavist Totalist Sedevacantists say we CANNOT elect a Pope because in the current situation we simply cannot convene an Imperfect Council that would come anywhere close to representing the universality of the Church and to gain universal acceptance because ... many non-Conclavist sedevacantists believe that there are many R&R Catholics who are still Catholic, despite their error, Sedeprivationists who are nevertheless Catholic, and even man in the Conciliar Church and Eastern Rites who are still Catholics, and almost none of them will accept the results of a Sedevacantist "Imperfect Council".

So, while there are different reasons given for why we CANNOT elect a Pope, given the current situation, we all just agree that we CANNOT, not the false strawman of just we WILL NOT because we don't really need a Pope.  Nobody except a +Fellay or the Motarians would say that.  Those think we just need the current administration to make some course corrections.

Where the Conclavists differ is in the reason they think they CAN, and the only way you can believe that you CAN is because you consider anyone who's R&R or ALL Conciliar Catholics and ALL Eastern Rite Catholics to be non-Catholic and therefore "don't count" and so that your "Imperfect Council" consisting of a couple dozen +Thuc line bishops DOES IN FACT provide a UNIVERSAL REPRESENTATION of the ENTIRE CHURCH.  That's a position almost everyone else considers to be schismatic.

As I pointed out ...

1) even if 2% of Conciliar Catholics are still actually Catholic, you're talking FIFTY MILLION
2) then you have SEVENTEEN MILLION Eastern Rite Catholics
3) then you have about 650K SSPX / R&R

Sedevacantists?  30,000 maybe, and of those you'd be lucky if half of them think a papal election is remotely feasible.

So 15,000 (with their couple dozen bishops) can represent the Universal Church and elect a Pope? 

Now, even if you could exclude all the millions in the Conciliar Church and the Eastern Rite, there's still that nagging problem of the 650K SSPX types, as well as sedeprivationists, and then those Totalist types who agree with me that you can't just exclusde all thoes people and pretend that YOU ARE the Church.