As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
Why in the world would you make this thread? Almost every single day for at least the last month (and still often beforehand) there have been threads where the liberals and the leftists aggressively talk in circles on this issue. The odds of you hearing anything new are incredibly low, and you might as well just go back to .ml’s c/news threads for the same material.
I just can’t keep having people yell the same nonsense at me over and over. If you’re really badly in need of leftist takes, I’ll DM you on request, but I don’t really want to talk about it publicly anymore except in more convincingly leftist spaces than .ml has been rendered by its federation.
If you want a more leftist space without so many liberals, you should try the dbzer0 instance.
I already found (and in fact am coming from, this is an alt account) some more appropriate instances, but I appreciate your trying to be helpful.
It feels like watching Trump burn the middle east to the ground instead of Harris would be cold comfort for anyone proud of not actively voting for a different genocide abetting candidate. There is no anti-genocide candidate, sadly, but one party has at least the shadow of a conscience that can be pressured later.
nice hasbara
Describe “even more”? In what specific material ways would trump increase support for Israel?
He would if he could but Harris is giving it a 100% already so Trump can’t up that.
deleted by creator
Even calling it “Israeli genocide” is transferring responsibility. “Supporting” is an understatement. The democrats ARE THE ONES DOING THE GENOCIDE. Biden can stop it with a single phone call. Israel is not an independent state; it is a subordinate of the US.
Telling people to vote for your party, a nazi party, at the absolute peak of your depraved inhuman bloodthirst, because the other side might be worse, is the most cynical fucking thing I’ve ever heard.
I genuinely do believe we’re going to look back this time as inexcusable. Right now, Netanyahu’s extreme right flank is now advocating for settlement of the parts of Gaza that have been ethnically cleansed. Specifically, they’re saying that as long as the army stays there for a permanent long-term occupation, that can be the first step to proceeding with settlements.
It’s so much worse than even the Iraq war. I’ve seen by some estimates that the Iraq war displaced 2 million people, and the deaths, before they stopped counting, were between 100,000 and a quarter million.
I think the deaths and displacements in Gaza probably are going to exceed those, and it’s concentrated in a much smaller area, and it’s horrifyingly closer to affecting the whole population.
Simply put there’s no excuse for this moral atrocity.
And here’s the but: I don’t see how a strategic attitude of indifference to who runs the State department brings it closer to an end. And I don’t see that that attitude is one of even pretending to try for an alternative. I do think supporting politicians especially in their Democratic primaries is a positive step. And I do think, as with the Iraq war, galvanizing a sea change and discrediting everyone who is associated with what happened in Gaza is necessary. I believe it is urgent to do something, and the actual channels of aid that can meaningfully do something right now exist entirely outside of party infrastructure of either party. But I also think, for how true that is, using that to lose sight a very real and very serious differences between the parties that also affect human welfare in numerous ways, would be to needlessly visit tragedy upon tragedy. I wouldn’t want to lose American democracy into the bargain, and I don’t think it’s nuanced to be in indifferent to that.
it’s the greater Israel project. they openly talk about it
tl;dr: “Can’t beat them, might as well join them!”
Nope, not even close to what I said.
So when Trump wins and my rights to exist are stripped even further, I’ll be sure to thank you for it
Republicans and Democrats were unable to stop legislation from the Judiciary with Roe v. Wade and later Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Super PAC’s donate multiple lifetimes of dollars to Presidential candidates in a quid pro quo system protected by the first amendment under Citizens United v. FEC. Americans outside the oligarchy will never exhibit their influence.
If oligarchs find your existence icky, they have the power to remove your “right” to exist. You lack the power to prevent it. Instead of thanking anyone, I suggest we take the power back. Punch up.
Voting doesn’t affect your ability to do other activism.
Agreed. Voting shouldn’t be the only activism we are involved in. My comment was about solidarity against the oligarchs that can decide to make life harder for people they deem icky.
The dems are not bringing your rights back. Project 2025 is happening regardless of who wins president due to how captured the court system is.
stop voting for genocide.
Every vote or lack thereof is a vote for genocide. There isn’t really a way to vote against it.
I honestly appreciate the downvotes as a counter of angry people shamed into silence
Good. You should be fucking ashamed.
Yeah the “democrats are the REAL nazis” is tiring when you get comments from the republican hero agent Orange: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-military-generals-hitler/680327/
Shut the fuck up. I never said the republicans weren’t nazis. I’m just fucking sick of you being an out and open nazi and acting like you fucking aren’t.
Not voting blue is voting red in the current system. So how do I not vote for a nazi party?
Well good news! I’m not voting red, so therefore I’m voting blue! Happy now, dipshit? Now you’ve got the swing state of California in the bag!
Don’t worry comrade I’m holding the line here in Michigan 🫡 one less vote for Trump!!
“Everyone I don’t like is a nazi”
I like everyone but nazis
Everyone on the side of genocide can be called a Nazi, yes.
Genocide is a necessary but not sufficient condition for nazism.
I’m not voting democrat because I “support genocide”, I’m voting democrat because if Trump gets elected, shit is about to get a WHOLE lot worse. It is damage control
You can keep sitting here and acting like a fucking child throwing a temper tantrum because you don’t like the reality of our only choices, but you are being just that. A child.
You can sit on the sidelines on your little soapbox and virtue signal all you want, but when Trump wins I won’t be blaming the republicans. I’ll be blaming all of you.
Their tiny liberal brains can’t handle anything that isn’t a binary choice.
They have fully accepted, absorbed and now spout George W Bush’s slogan of “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” without any irony that they are the terrorists!
As I said, I want to personally thank you and your ilk for Trump winning this election.
Congratulations. You let the fascists win to “stick it to the libs”
Oh please. As if my actions were for petty spite and not the actual reasons I stated. As if the focus of my anger is dipshits like you and not the people with the actual blood on their hands? You annoy the fuck out of me but my hatred isn’t directed at you.
That said, I think it’s fucking good you’re pissed off and upset. You deserve to be. You did a terrible thing. And you didn’t even get what you sold out your basic human decency for. Not to mention selling out people having their entire families killed day after day. Now you’re a nazi and a loser. How does it feel?
My fault? I fucking wish. The democrats did such a deliberately dogshit job with such a dogshit candidate leftists (and the muslims that will never forget your vicious racism towards them) were a fraction of the votes they threw away. I don’t even live in one of the two states that even had a realistic claim to a vote in this election. Why are you getting upset at people for not voting when you don’t even live in a real democracy in the first place?
Your anger needs to be directed at the political system itself. God I wish people like you would stop and have a sober assessment of what the democratic party does and why. You’re angry because the people committing a genocide lost because that means the fascists won?? Are you fucking hearing yourself?? By any semi-rigorous definition of the word, the democratic party are fascists. When BLM happened they brutalized the protestors and responded on the backend by ballooning the police state. (The budget at least even if they can’t find recruits). Fascism is capitalism in decay discarding the soft power that keeps people in line and resorting to the tactics that work on the imperial periphery against the domestic population.
You cannot vote fascism out of a fascist country. The frustration you feel right now is built into the system. This is the only outcome you’re ever going to get. I’m glad you’re feeling it right now. I wish you still felt it when Biden was doing literally fucking everything Trump was doing and will now continue to. Please take this time to reassess your political understanding. You will never save yourself with voting.
Blah blah. You helped Trump. Blocked.
the most cynical fucking thing I’ve ever heard.
Yes, it’s cynical. It’s based on the jaded belief that democracy is 90% dead, and Americans only get to make one of two meaningful choices.
The opposite belief, which is that America is a democracy and you can vote for whoever you want, is hopeful and patriotic. It puts a lot of trust in the American system. It shows faith that politicians have our best interests at heart, and that it’ll all work out if you just say what you want.
Is that how you want to describe yourself? As a patriot who believes in America? It doesn’t seem to align with your worldview, but it’s what your actions are saying.
you’re a silly one
I’d rather vote for the party that’s 85% nazi than 100%. And in a world where it’s entirely unrealistic that anyone else can win between past-the-post voting and voter disenfranchisement, that’s the best we’re getting.
holy shit they’re actually doing the 99% hitler meme now, this country is cooked
oh to be clear. I know the democrats are doing terrible things, I just think it’s easier and more practical to get them to stop than it is to keep them out of office.
Yeah good luck with that buddy that’s definitely been effective in the past and totally isn’t more of what got us here in the first place and isn’t actively undermined by the current protests going on and the presidency being at stake for them and their policies still not budging or their voters’ demands even being acknowledged.
eh. Not my style.
This was a meme like 6 years ago, that we’d get to the point that US democrats would accept a candidate that’s 99% pro-genocide compared to the 100% republican one. It’s worked, and now democrats are falling over themselves to defend this genocide and their party’s staunch material support for it.
Keep voting tho, its working great so far. The USA keeps improving by doing the same thing over and over again. /s
She’s campaigning on building the wall. she’s endorsed by dick cheney and 200+ reagan and Bush admin staffers. we have sent more aid to Israel in the past year than we ever have since Israel was invented. she has stated that her support of Israel is iron-clad. the current admin has broken records for the amount of oil and gas extracted extracted in the past 4 years. she has refused to voice support for the trans people who are supposedly going to be protected by her admin. she has kicked Palestinian people out of her campaign events, while instead parading around Richie Torres, a person who famously has stated multiple times that Palestinians deserve their eradication. her policy page has removed all mentions of medicare for all and paths to citizenship. she has promised to make america’s military the most lethal fighting force in the world.
she has decided that the “moderate conservative” who will never vote for her is more important than all the progressives and leftists who probably would’ve. just like Hillary Clinton and Dale Earnhardt, she’s going to crash into a wall because she can’t turn left.
The fact Dick Cheney, a war criminal along with Bush Jr. and her ‘graciously’ accepting of it, is not sending massive warning horns and bells to the average Dem, OE to her own campaign should be enough to see they have lost their own plot. They are out of touch and just screaming, orange man bad, does not fix their own problems. Many people are not enough of a blind ideologues to not see that.
They are pushing for Trump’s border wall. Like come on.
And if you’re in this position where you see this all as fact, then what is the alternative?
IMO there is none.
Trying to rebuild the system at the time of an election is the wrong time. You have two options - because that is the reality you live in (right now).
Work on building something better AFTER the election, change the system, fix it for the future. But for NOW, you get a choice. Not voting (in this system) is a vote for ambivalence, and you dont seem like the person that doesn’t care.
But importantly, work to change the system later. You have valid concerns and the system you are in is broken, but you can make a change.
Edit: to not be misconstrued, I agree with the issues at hand that you’re highlighting. I’m just saying that the alternative is worse and that is a likelihood in this reality no?
Always time later right? Later never comes though does it.
And all of this concern was here before the election, its only getting attention now because during election season is the only time it has an effect.
People just blow off protestors during the non election season. Why? Because they don’t have to bargain with them, they have no power then.
They have no power because they believe they have no power and dissociate. Self fulfilling prophecy. All the power in this country comes from the people. It’s a fact.
There have been countless protests in the US against the genocide of Palestinians over the last year, since Israel really kicked the genocide into high gear. What have the democrats (the party that everyone insists can be pressured by their base) done in response to this?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the democrats chances of winning are being hampered by this issue.
Of course they are. Harris might lose because of her positions on Gaza. And in spite of this, most Democrats, including Harris, refuse to budge on their “ironclad” support of Israel. Just like the Biden administration has refused to budge in the face of countless protests against their support for Israel over the past year.
I’m arguing against the whole “elect them and then pressure them into moving left” rhetoric because that has proven to be a completely ineffective tactic.
Seems like your tactics has been ineffective. I mean especially when you consider trump taking office and unleashing only terrible shit that a addled minded fascist would want.
After election protests were shot at, broken up and arrested. Election is the only way to change how stuff is today.
Democracy : Very bad choice versus very very bad choice
Democracy : a vote for the system versus a vote for the system
Democracy : a thin facade hiding a genicidal monstrous death machine that claims to speak for us all
Hint : is it really democracy after Edward Bernays ?
Time to overwrite the government and take out the trash
people dont seem to see the difference between ending up with a party for which a good chunk of their supporters think that what Israel is doing is a genocide vs ending up with a party for which all of their supporters think not only that what Israel is doing is justified but should also do the same to all middle eastern countries (together with direct USA involvement).
I think there are two major subgroups within this group.
First one is immigrants whose families are from the middle east/Palestine who are rightfully very angry at all the world for doing jack shit about Israel committing genocide. What they have to realize is there are unfortunately only two options going ahead: 1- as it is now, maybe somewhat better in future, or 2- much worse. There is no third option that is going to come out of these elections but one where there is potential for change (potential coming from the supporters mentioned above) vs %100 chance of things going for the worse. Note that I am not talking at all about the candidates themselves at all, just the demographic that generally votes for them.
The second group is probably China or Russia fans who just want to see America suffer by getting Trump elected. These are very short sighted people with whom you cannot really have a coherent conversation with.
Never again means never again, I will not be party to it.
That’s too simplistic. The two parties will either make it worse or not make it better. Not voting (assuming you are in a state without winner-takes-all or are in a swing/purple state) is letting other people decide for you. Walking away from the trolley problem doesn’t untie people from the tracks.
You’re completely missing the point of the trolley problem:
Do you take an action that causes a direct harm, even if it’s in service to reducing harm?
It’s a valid moral stance to decide you will not personally perform a harmful action. That’s not walking away from the trolley, that’s refusing to throw the switch.
Your framing of the situation is false. Voting for Harris is throwing the switch and dooming Palestinians. Voting third party/not voting is not throwing the switch: you are not condoning the system that runs people over, you are not taking an action that directly harms people.
To be clear, throwong the switch is also a valid moral stance.
Personally, I believe voting for Harris prolongs our faulty political system. I voted for Kerry, then Obama (first willingly, then let myself be guilted into it). The Democrats have only gotten worse with time, and I won’t vote for a party that represents me less with time instead of more.
Walking away from the switch is making a choice. You’re exactly as complicit in the result as if you had flipped the switch.
When someone constructs a catch-22, the answer isn’t to play their game, it’s to build a new one, leave, or at the very least refuse to accept their false options. Genocide is not inevitable, no matter how many US democrats and republicans tell you that it is.
But this isn’t a mental exercise, this is real life. The choice and all of its consequences are still happening regardless of your choice to disengage. They aren’t “false options”, they’re printed on the ballot. The only way to reject the premise here is actual spontaneous massive revolution, and if you’re suggesting that as an alternative to voting, well, I don’t imagine you’re of voting age anyway.
They aren’t “false options”, they’re printed on the ballot.
I printed two options on my ballot. Give your consent for one of these options!
- Kill Palestinian civilians
- Kill Palestinian civilians
Printing them on there makes it real.
The only way to reject the premise here is actual spontaneous massive revolution, and if you’re suggesting that as an alternative to voting, well, I don’t imagine you’re of voting age anyway.
Standard liberal smugness, decrying the backbreaking efforts and blood spent by hundreds of millions of mostly poor peasants who fought and succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of colonialism.
Right, I’m “decrying” successful revolutions because I don’t believe that your armchair activism is going to start any actual movement capable of disturbing the status quo.
Reddit logic isn’t going to convince me to support a genocide candidate, sorry. My vote was never yours. There’s no tent big enough that Dick Cheney being invited in won’t result in me wanting to burn the whole tent down.
So Dick Cheney decides your politics for you?
I don’t vote for republicans… If you pander to and platform republicans, I will not vote for you. If you plan to put a republican in your cabinet, I will not vote for you. If your immigration plan is just the republican plan from 8 years ago, i will not vote for you. If you insist that I must support genocide otherwise there will be more genocide, I will not vote for you…
So if Dick Cheney said “Russia is terrible, you should support Ukraine” you would oppose Ukraine because Dick Cheney supports them?
Opposing everything Dick Cheney does is mindless and is allowing Dick Cheney to decide what you support.
I will not vote for you
I will not vote for you
I will not vote for you
It looks like you’re not going to vote for anyone anyway so why should either party care what you want?
I voted bud, just not for Harris. I.don’t.vote.for.republicans.
If national democrats want to platform all the pre 2016 republican policies, I will not vote for them.
Lots of down ballot stuff, so take your win.
Where was he invited?
Because they don’t understand that voting is just one part of the democratic process.
Because why would a pro-Palestine person vote for the person who has aided the genocide against them and continues to vow further support for the regime responsible?
The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
How is Kamala less likely to escalate it further when she has supported the actual ongoing genocide? What will Trump escalate it to? Double genocide? Either way I’m not voting for Trump so I don’t have to agree with his policies. I’m just not going to let the Dems conduct Genocide and scare me into agreeance with them using the threat of Trump.
If you’re talking about escalation with Iran, we have already been working with Israel for a “response” to Iran response and she has again supported Israels right to continue their provocations in the name of “defense”.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
Crazy stuff like genocide? Expanding the “war” in Gaza into Lebanon? Provoking Iran with a strike on their soil then planning “retaliation” for their retaliation?
As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Kamala is actively engaged in a genocide. There should be punishments for this. The least of which should be losing your role in any sort of elected office. A vote for Kamala is literally a vote saying that you are okay with genocide as long as it benefits you to do so.
What will Trump escalate it to? Double genocide?
Genuinely, have you read any of the man’s comments? He is criticising the Biden administration for being too harsh on Israel. To quote him: ““From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate ceasefire, always demanding ceasefire”. However bad things currently are, Trump’s openly-stated position on that horrific situation is that Israel needs to go in harder.
To quote him: ““From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate ceasefire, always demanding ceasefire”.
Okay? Do you usually treat what Trump says as gospel? …Do you think she got a ceasefire or successfully restrained Israels genocidal ambitions so far?
Materially, what is the difference between them.
“Genocide but sad” vs “Genocide and happy”, I’m not choosing Genocide period.
However bad things currently are, Trump’s openly-stated position that horrific situation is that Israel needs to go in harder.
Things are genocide, Harris’ openly stated positions are horrific and enabling of a genocide we have seen be carried out.
Kamala Harris is actively engaging in genocide and it’s worked for over a year, you’re engaging in hypotheticals on it getting worse based off Trump’s words. Perhaps Trump’s incompetence would even lead to a forced end to the genocide if we are engaging in hypotheticals, in fact, I’d wager thats much more likely than Harris suddenly switching from a genocider to a compassionate human being and ending it.
Do you usually treat what Trump says as gospel?
In so far as it being a reflection of his intentions when otherwise entirely plausible? Yeah, sure. This isn’t him drawing on a hurricane map with a pen.
“Genocide but sad” vs “Genocide and happy”, I’m not choosing Genocide period.
Fifty thousand dead Palestinians is fifty thousand too many - or however many the real number is by now - but there are two million Palestinians in Gaza, and three million in the West Bank. Despite how bad it already is, this can still get so, so much worse.
Your claim to not choose genocide is, in fact, a choice to let the rest of the country decide without your input. If Harris’ lukewarm opposition saves literally any Palestinian lives whatsoever relative to the alternative, that’s worth more than someone feeling smug about not voting. I don’t know about you, but I think that the most ethical choice, if you are voting solely on the matter of Palestine, is whichever option is materially best for actual Palestinians even if that option is still horrible
you’re engaging in hypotheticals on it getting worse based off Trump’s words
Are you suggesting it is not reasonable to judge a politician based on the things they say?
But don’t worry, because I’m also judging him on his actions when he was president last time. Like pardoning American war criminals, massively increasing the amount of drone strikes conducted, assassinating an Iranian general, recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, attempting to extort Ukraine for his own political gains, and actively backing the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. And as a reminder, even the Biden administration dropped support for that last one. He’s as belligerent as any American president and no hypotheticals are needed to demonstrate that. So when he says he wants Israel to do more in Gaza? Yeah I consider that a genuine and meaningful threat to the millions of Palestinians that haven’t been killed yet, and I will absolutely take Harris’ nothing response over that.
So on what basis do you think that Trump is the preferable option?
50k is not a true figure, it’s confirmed deaths. most are stuck in rubble and israel destroys all of their heavy machinery they have no way to dig up the bodies. and no, Harris nor Biden are holding Israel back. what a joke. I hope you’re a paid poster and not a real person because that’s a real dumb opinion. I don’t care if you read it in MSM and for some reason believe it. It was such a blatant attempt at damage control. If you’re a real person I recommend you get your news from sources such as the grayzone, mintpressnews, mondoweiss, the electronic intifada, etc
I know 50k is the confirmed number, that’s why I specifically made an aside about the real number
I’m not even saying Biden or Harris are holding Israel back. I’m saying Trump has openly stated that he wants to push Israel even further than it is already going.
Considering you apparently didn’t read what I actually wrote and instead chose to insult me over something you made up, I’m hardly about to take your news recommendations. I’m even less inclined to do so when the first one is the Grayzone.
Hi i am a different person and just read thru your convo there. I wanna chime in and ask you a genuine question that hopefully you will think over.
If right now as we speak Israel is being given unlimited material support for their genocide and actively killing as many Palestinians as they materially can (They only have so much bomb dropping capacity) No matter what Trump might say in what way do you think he would make it worse? Like what actual material steps would he take to kill more Palestinians? Because short of just nuking the Gaza strip over and over again(They wont do this since they want to take the land and Israel is too close anyway would be radiation issues) i struggle to see how he could. Especially considering the articles coming out recently about how the US is running out of surplus equipment to send Ukraine and Israel.
I’m not even saying Biden or Harris are holding Israel back. I’m saying Trump has openly stated that he wants to push Israel even further than it is already going.
Yes, you are repeatedly stating this while seemingly ignoring that Kamala and Biden are already doing genocide, because it doesn’t get worse than that. If Kamala isn’t stopping the genocide or even holding Israel back, how will Trump be worse? What could Trump possibly do that’s worse than genocide? “Finish the job” vs “finish the job faster”, either way the same result, genocide.
As I stated in my last message, if Trump gets in and starts directing Israel how to do the genocide and demands they do it faster, there’s a real chance his incompetence leads to its failure. Whereas under Kamala Biden it’s already been ongoing for over a year.
If we have to choose between “slow effective genocide” vs “fast sloppy genocide” I’m choosing the sloppy one. As it has the best chance of failing. (I don’t support this argument of choosing a “lesser genocide” though, just stating the flaws in your argument).
Considering you apparently didn’t read what I actually wrote and instead chose to insult me over something you made up
They most likely insulted you because they read what you wrote, the same reason I didn’t respond initially.
Your entire previous reply to me is ignoring context almost to the point of strawmanning and borderline genocide denial*. It comes off as someone who doesn’t actually care about the issue and just wants to get their talking points out about why genocidal Trump is bad and genocidal Democrats are good.
*edit for clarification: the “Trump would do it faster” is an echo of the “it’s not a genocide because they could destroy Palestine anytime and haven’t” form of denialism
If Kamala isn’t stopping the genocide or even holding Israel back, how will Trump be worse? What could Trump possibly do that’s worse than genocide?
America absolutely has the capacity to supply far more equipment than it already is, and it has a track record of engaging in bombing campaigns in its own right in similar situations. Like in Yemen, under Trump. I do not want America to start bombing Palestine directly as well
“Finish the job” vs “finish the job faster”, either way the same result, genocide.
If they get to finish the job. The less quickly they can finish it, the more of a chance there is of Israeli and/or international public support turning against it enough to actually change it. The American election is not going to do that by itself because both realistic candidates are pro-Israel, so there is no point in making decisions that only work if they completely stop the genocide by voting or not voting.
You clearly also think that there is a chance of it being stopped since that’s your foundation for saying faster genocide is preferable. I don’t think your logic holds there, because I don’t see why a faster one would be likely to fail faster. On that basis, slower means fewer dead Palestinians.
It comes off as someone who doesn’t actually care about the issue and just wants to get their talking points out about why genocidal Trump is bad and genocidal Democrats are good.
Literally every point I made was explicitly rooted in what I believe will result in the fewest Palestinian deaths.
They most likely insulted you because they read what you wrote, the same reason I didn’t respond initially.
I accused them of not reading because they started off by trying to nitpick me by restating the exact same thing I pointed out literally in the same sentence.
https://hexbear.net/post/3754069
saw this and figured id point it out to u
Some people think the trolley problem is just a funny template.
Some people think it’s the height of political thought and a sufficient salve for supporting genocide.
Was that why people couldn’t vote for Hillary?
Or Kerry?
Or Gore?
It’s always something with people’s excuses for letting things get worse and feeling smug about it. This is worse than usual - but the system hasn’t changed, and your inaction still makes things worse. Y’think open American fascism is gonna make anything better?
Gore won the popular vote and the electoral college. Kerry wasn’t voted for because more than 80% of democrats fully supported the w bush admin.
Clinton was a genocidal monster, as she has always been.
We e had open American fascism since the 1980s, we just invested tens of billions into things like project mockingbird to eliminate realization amongst most the population.
Your questions don’t make sense.
Do you think that the people overinvested in trolley problem electoral logic vote shaming are the ones that didn’t vote for Hillary? You seem to be confused about who gets gung-ho about that kind of stuff.
I get the sense that you were just searching for phrases you feel comfortable with but didn’t know how to put them together in any kind of coherent way.
4 years ago, Democrats said the border wall was stupid and bad. They said that Republicans were racist for claiming all Mexicans were drug dealers and criminals. Today, Harris is saying she’s gonna build the border wall, be tough on migrants, and has basically adopted Trump’s policies on immigration.
There is no indication that the Democrats will not be just as bad as the Republicans on Israel in 4 years.
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
This election should be a slam dunk victory for Harris. The data shows that adopting leftist progressive policies is popular. Biden dropping out resulted in $4 million in small donor fundraising. Picking Walz resulted in another $2 million. People got really excited when it looked like the Democratic party was making leftist progressive movement.
Since then, the Dems have been aggressively moving towards the center. More lethal military, inciting panic about the border, ignoring Palestine. This has resulted in an extremely tight race as people are no longer excited to vote for Harris.
I want Harris to win. Moving leftward politically will attract more voters. Taking a firm stance on stopping the Israeli government’s genocide is a leftist progressive policy. The bag is right there, she just needs to grab it.
The opposite of „not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump“ isn’t true because of the electoral college, which heavily skews towards rural states with not many voters, which are often conservative.
You need roughly 4 Californian votes to match 1 Wyoming vote. That’s why Republicans seldom win the popular vote and still manage to win elections.
So if left leaning people don’t vote (or vote third party), the negative effect for Harris is amplified in comparison to conservatives.
Well, in that case, the Democrats should adopt policies that attract more left leaning voters. Saying stuff like, “I will prosecute migrants” doesn’t make any sense because if that is an important topic to a voter, why wouldn’t they just vote Trump who has promised that and more?
If the problem is, “not enough left leaning votes”, the solution seems like, “attract more left leaning votes”. People in this country love progressive leftist policies like universal healthcare or not funding genocides, no matter their party affiliation. People have not responded well to neo-liberal/conservative policies like means testing school lunches or increasingly stringent border laws.
And yet, the Democratic party continually adopts neo-liberal/conservative policies. It feels like voting Democrat is just, “voting Republican but slower”. The Democratic party has accepted the Republican framing about an imaginary migrant crisis, and that was with a much more firm stance against racism only 4 years ago. Yeah, they would possibly be better on Israel’s genocide than Republicans, but all the actions protesting the genocide have been met with vitriol from the current administration. It seems far more likely that the Democrats would just do the same thing as Republicans, just less loudly.
The Democratic party cannot expect to win simply because, “orange man bad”. They have not shown they will not continue to adopt Republican ideas and policies. If they want people to vote for them, they should do things to attract those voters. They should stop doing things that pushes away voters.
It’s not as easy as you make it out to be.
The Democrats have to try to achieve the impossible: trying to retain left-leaning voters while getting enough centrists/swing votes to overcome the systematic disadvantage the electoral college poses for them.
In a de facto two party system that puts them between a rock and a hard place.
But what does that mean for you as a (I assume) left leaning voter?
It’s actually quite simple: vote for the least bad option.
By not voting for Harris you may successfully show the democrats your discontent for their policies. But you pay for that by helping a possible fascist into power (remember: we already found out that not voting, helps republican candidates in most cases), who will be far worse on most policies you care about.
It really doesn’t feel like the Democrats are the least bad option when they keep adopting Republican policies. Sure, they don’t want to kill trans people or conduct mass deportations now, but it sure feels like 4 years down the line I’m gonna be asked to vote Democrat even though Harris or whoever is trying to increase police budgets to “fight rising crime” or something ridiculous.
I keep having to vote for “the least bad option” while the Democratic party only ever courts neo-liberal/conservative voters. It really seems like my options are Fascist Now Party or Fascist Later Party. If the Democrats don’t listen when I vote and don’t listen when I abstain, why should I vote?
I feel like it is not a winning campaign strategy to say, “vote for Democrats because the Republicans are far worse”. Progressive left policies are popular amongst centrist and swing voters, so it isn’t like the Democrats will lose centrists by adopting progressive policies. Everybody likes expanding healthcare. Nobody likes genocide. So if adopting progressive policies attracts voters from all across the spectrum, why are the Democrats only focusing on stuff like, “build the wall” or “stay silent about genocide”?
It really seems like my options are Fascist Now Party or Fascist Later Party. If the Democrats don’t listen when I vote and don’t listen when I abstain, why should I vote?
The answer is in your question. Fascism later is the better option because it buys you time to do something else. Fascism now means the game is over today. Nothing about that is difficult to understand.
You’ll have ample time (and freedom) to oppose Harris after November, but now’s not the time.
Based on how liberals have accepted genocide as necessary at this point, the “fascism later” option seems more likely to make people comfortable with fascism, rather than buying us time to resist.
Even if that was true, how is that better than having fascism today, given than genocide will happen no matter what? You seem to imply people will have more willingness to resist if it happens tomorrow (and I doubt it). But are you really willing to take the chance on actual fascism? It really seems like you want it to happen…
You guys have a twisted sense of priorities. You’re willing to trade a maybe for a surely.
The electoral college ensures the vote in California has nothing to do with the one in Wyoming.
You still haven’t provided any proof that the net result of third party or not voting favors republicans though. It could just as easily still be neutral, or favor democrats.
It’s not rocket science. The person I responded to said they want Harris to win. Thus they are a potential Harris voter. When they don’t vote, Harris loses a potential vote, not Trump.
Depending on where they live, this gets amplified by the systemic disadvantage of left-leaning states in the electoral college.
If someone says they want kamala to win but doesnt vote for her, maybe you shouldnt trust what they say.
Classic progressive defeatist mantra: you’re not left enough so fuck you. Bring on the fascist.
The anti-genocide people have drawn a line in the sand and decided to stick to that principle. I think it is pretty reasonable to have lines you do not cross with genocide being a pretty understandable one. These people have decided, “if you use our tax dollars for genocide, we will not vote for you”.
You are asking them to, “ignore the genocide stuff and focus on the good stuff”, but unlike Biden, these people have red lines they will not cross.
If you don’t want fascists to come into power, then the Democrats should stop doing fascism-lite. I think it is reasonable for people not to support fascism-lite. They should indeed move further left away from the fascism they are barreling towards.
Stupid take. Genocide light is better than genocide on steroids. Netanyahu wants Trump to win so he can go in and show you what real genocide looks like.
Do you even hear yourself?
100%. And you are either a Russian/Chinese troll or worse, an idiot that think a dictator wannabe is better than a moderate.
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
You’re missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.
Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn’t mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.
There are far more people that don’t vote than there are conservative democrats. In fact, non-voters are the biggest chunk of population in this country. Instead of courting the center conservative voters, wouldn’t it make more sense to target non-voters with policies that have been proven to be widely popular?
People like progressive left-leaning policies. Streamlining the citizenship process for immigrants is popular. Fighting price gouging is popular. Not supporting genocide is popular. It seems like getting the couch potatoes excited to vote would have more beneficial results than trying to attract conservative democrats with unpopular neo-liberal conservative policies.
You simply cannot count votes you never had.
Thanks for the elaborated comment! Don’t mind the negativity around the replies, some ppl are so simple they will hate until you literally say ‘Harris good, Trump bad’.
I’ve recently seen a nice description of that - “peasant mindset”.
People who are not ready and willing to peacefully discuss reality with literally anyone, and most of all marginal and weird viewpoints, like sovcits and antivaxxers, because those are more interesting, - have that “peasant mindset”.
(I’ve found something like that in my head too this morning, so sharing the thought.)
Aggression is a sign of fear, and fear is something we feel when we are not ready to change our mind if we get some good arguments, or when we get bad, insufficient arguments, but are pressed to change our mind anyway.
Why can we not be ready for that, feel powerless before that possibility of deciding to think differently 5 minutes from now?
Because there’s something that we follow like a peasant follows their master. It’s the assumed identity, the family, the group, the party, the state, the nation. Such a decision, and a decision to discuss reality preceding that, is an act of defiance toward those. It’s a conflict, and we as humans sometimes try to avoid conflicts. It’s like discussing orders. Only there’s not a single soul above us who is entitled to order us how we vote or how we think.
Every decision worth making is destructive, everything new comes in the place of something old and something that could be, there’s nothing to fear.
Changing one’s mind by a conscious decision after careful consideration is a sign of having personal dignity. Not changing one’s mind in the same situation is too a sign of having personal dignity.
Keeping your head down and trying to eat anyone not in line is not.
(too long again)
Democrats making obviously winning plays? You cannot be serious.
They are intentionally bad at politics. Their greatest skills are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and shitting and falling back in it. Wanna see how for yourself? Dig into the DNC. They’re not a political entity, they’re a corp. And they work for the interests of corps. If what they do occasionally isnt absolute shit its almost entirely incidental.
I’m going to tell you a secret.
The people who say this, the leftists that threaten to withhold their votes, tend to vote strategically anyways. But threatening to withhold votes is one way to apply pressure to politicians to do things like, say, stop promoting a fucking genocide. And then liberals lose their minds for some reason and make it totally irrelevant. And then we have a genocide that lasts for 75 years and starts world war 3.
It’s the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, “Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people”.
But if you take a step back it’s reasonable to ask, “WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don’t spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus’ forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose.”
So given that realization it’s also reasonable when told you must choose to say, “Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt.”
That’s the essential argument. There’s the realpolitik decision to do “less harm”, but you can also reject the fucked up premise.
And then the trolley cross track drifts and murders six people while the third party voter feels smug and self-righteous about ‘doing the right thing’.
The time to prevent the construction of the trolley, to prevent people from being kidnapped from their homes and tied to trolley tracks, is every time other than the election, so your election options are the ‘Not Murdering People With Trolleys’ group.
During the election, you minimize harm.
And for everything else, you push for improvements.
The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.
You need to care before the trolley is barrelling down the tracks.
The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.
So why do establishment liberals ignore the demands of progressives until it’s time to suddenly demand their votes?
Because you’re cherry picking people to be “establishment liberals.”
Bernie sanders exists. AOC exists. Etc etc etc
What cherry was allegedly picked in the comment you replied to?
AOC is somehow not an establishment democrat??
“She is working tirelessly to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing the hostages home,” the Squad member said Monday night in championing Kamala Harris for president.
I’m point out establishment liberals that ARE listening to progressives, or are progressives themselves.
every post about this topic we have one person saying its the trolley problem, and starting a digression based on that, and one person saying its all first past the post voting, and starting a digression on that. The uniformity of the pattern of distraction setting is pretty suspicious.
You can reject the fucked up premise, and find you still live in a reality that doesn’t give a shit. In reality there are two outcomes to this election, and just a smidge of knowledge of game theory would show it doesn’t make sense to help the worse side, both in the short and long term.
I hate that we have 2 options, I hate that there is no ‘no genocide’ option. Me hating that shouldn’t cause me to make worse decisions with clearly worse outcomes for everyone
The no genocide option is to protest against the current regime instead of vote shaming people who probably don’t even live in a single swing state (where your candidate brought Liz Fucking Cheney btw).
There is no “No Genocide” option. There only Same Genocide with Harris and More Genocide with Trump.
Do you even hear yourself?
Do you know the reality of our electrical system?
The critique of the trolly problem isn’t that you don’t still make the choice, it’s that the outcome was predetermined before you even got there.
Leftists who are making a point of abstaining are doing so to point out that voters have no control over the trolly to begin with - that the choice is artificial because the outcomes were pre-selected by someone/something else to ensure a particular outcome, and that participating in that choice only ends up legitimizing that process.
I think something that contributes to people talking past each other here is a difference in belief in how necessary/desirable revolution/overthrow of the U.S government is. Like many of the people who I’ve talked to online, who advocate not voting and are also highly engaged, believe in revolution as the necessary alternative. Which does make sense. It’s hard to believe that the system is fundamentally genocidal and not worth working within (by voting for the lesser evil) without also believing that the solution is to overthrow that system.
And in that case, we’re discussing the wrong thing. Like the question isn’t whether you should vote or not . it’s whether the system is worth preserving (and of course what do you do to change it. How much violence in a revolution is necessary/acceptable). Like if you believe it is worth preserving, then clearly you should vote. And if you believe it isn’t, there’s stronger case for not voting and instead working on a revolution.
Does anyone here believe that revolution isn’t necessary and also that voting for the lesser isn’t necessary?
The opposite is more plausible to me: believing in the necessity of revolution while also voting
Personally I believe that revolution or its attempt is unlikely to effective and voting+activism is more effective, and also requires agreement from fewer people in order to progress on its goals. Tragically, this likely means that thousands more people will be murdered, but I don’t know what can actually be effective at stopping that.
They can’t be arsed to choose pragmatically between two bad candidates when voting and we’re to believe they can do a revolution that involves several harder choices? Do these people think revolutions are easy walks in the park where you never have to make hard choices like, for example, killing your neighbors for being in the way of the revolution or how to handle POWs, etc.
Some people assume that voting and political activism are mutually exclusive, these people are stupid and won’t win a revolution. These two things are not mutually exclusive, voting doesn’t stop you from protesting and being politically engaged and vice versa.
Oh man this thread is a real breath of fresh air, thank you three for having heads on your shoulders.
To push her to change her stance… you only own your vote. That’s the only leverage. She is the reason they aren’t voting for her.
I mean it does doesn’t it? Trump supports can also threaten not to vote for him if he continues bad policies.
But we are talking about Harris supporters here. If Americans don’t even have a real vote with real value then what would stop Harris or Trump policies that will eventually render everyone in Gaza dead? If you can’t even speak to politicians with your own vote and if they don’t even value your vote, then how are we going to achieve anything?
Harris is the one losing votes for her shitty policy. It’s not the fault of the voter. It’s the fault of the candidate.
Correct! That’s a great reason not to vote for either of them.
Pragmatically, Harris losing votes should make her understand the need to not support a genocide. But no, we have to lay the burden on everyone else but her.
What does that have to with anything? No one’s claiming that Trump would be good on Palestine or that you should vote for him, it’s a whataboutism.
deleted by creator
Actually yes, and that may one day even break the deadlock American politicians put onto their failed two party system.
deleted by creator
European here, stuck in the middle of all this.
Please vote Harris.
The winner of this ellection will be the president of all americans, not just of its supporters.
an election is just a nudge in one direction. real change takes many electoral cycles or a revolution.
If you want to do a revolution please do that on your own time or think long term electoral strategy.
Dont be stupid, be usefull. Even if it hurts.
The democrats have won most of the elections in the past 30 years and they are still going more and more right. I don’t think you’re correct in this analysis. Hilary Clinton and Al Gore won the elections and didn’t become president, even discounting that the democrats have been in power for the majority of this century and they have only become more and more right wing.
