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.
I am both anti-Israel and anti-Hamas. Both have gone full evil.
I am pro unarmed civilian.
And yes, invasive settlers are frequently “armed” with machines of destruction like dozers. If only they could be satisfied with what they have already stolen…
Because they’re stupid enough to think a Trump presidency will be better for their cause somehow. Or they’re delusional enough to think that a 3rd party candidate will be anything but a spoiler, like they were in 2016. Seriously, protest votes after the DNC forced out Bernie were likely what led to Trump getting in. So while it’s the DNC and Hillary’s fault, the feet on the ground were the idiots.
The democrats won in 2020. How is it working out? They are not doing anything morally repulsive I assume. Only Trump would do that.
A lot better than if they had lost, jfc
You are saying current Democrats have not done anything less repulsive than 2016 Trump
after the DNC forced out Bernie
Keep doing what the Dems are telling you to do, its working out great.
DNC komissars fucked their only job…
Proceeds to blame the people for not voting right
The U.S. also has a huge defense industry that has made people ridiculously rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Those billionaires are heavily invested in the defense industry, so it’s not in their interests that wars end at all.
This is that “military-industrial complex” that former President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. His concern was that the U.S. would become bogged down in an endless series of “forever wars” that do nothing but transfer wealth to the already-wealthy.
Keeping that military industrial complex well-fed is the reason why so many politicians have such a boner for war. Not only to keep their wealthy sponsors happy, but to keep tax money and jobs flowing to their states, which just happen to manufacture war materiel.
Solid analysis
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.
Because they’re willing to chop off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Only in doing so they’re going to screw over the rest of us and apparently they don’t care.
Harris is the only sane choice.
You are actually insane.
You want us to vote for the person running to the right of the guy who kept all of trump’s policies because trump might get into office?
And that should be a compelling enough reason to hold our noses for genocide?
Shaming peoppe so they vote for your guy. Try harder.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election
If you don’t live in one of the 7 states that matter in an election then you can vote your morality, safe in the knowledge that the EC will ignore your input, anyway
Inb4 some dipshit mentions down ballots when we’re talking about the fucking presidential election
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?
Democrats are not pro Palestine. They simply don’t care about Genocide when Democrats do it. They are Nazis.
That is not the question. The question is: it’s a binary choice. People should be aware that not voting helps the worst candidate win. Why not vote for the less bad candidate then?
It is not a binary choice… And you saying this is bad faith behavior.
Third party vote is a protest vote and it is as valid as any other vote.
Not voting is providing the regime legitimacy.
Both of those are in essence a vote for trump. It is a binary choice.
Ans this is likely why kamala gomma lose lol
Keep it up
We had trump already… And we are still here today.
If your entire campaign she is not trump, thats a pathetic campaign.
You really overestimate how many people care abiut trump winning
I care more about making a point that i dont approve of current politics coming from both sides.
Yall can figure between each other which clown wins.
I’m glad you think that a candidate who doesn’t want to imprison immigrants, eliminate queer people, and control women is the “worst candidate”
Thats a fact. Also genocide will proceed as scheduled.
Vote for 3p is just letting regime know that some voters are not satisfied.
It is not a binary choice. When people vote third party it shows politicians supporting Israel comes with political consequences.
Voting for Green is the best thing a voter can do. Even forgiving Democrats for being complicit in an entire year of Genocide would be questionable. But Democrats are not distancing themselves from the Genocide. They are literally saying they want to continue the Genocide and start a war with Iran too.
Democrats aren’t going to magically do what you want if you reward them for bad behavior. Instead they will double down on bad behavior.
Life lasts longer than 4 years.
In a ranked choice system or other better voting system, yes.
In the current system, voting for anyone but the least bad choice among the two that stand a chance is almost like giving your vote to the one that has the best chances, regardless of your preferences.
Look up the spoiler effect in elections.
Or, CGP Grey has an excellent explanation of the whole thing.
Your logic works assuming the world lasts 4 years.
Some people are single-issue voters who don’t care if one side is slightly better, even if still terrible, than the other on that issue. They will gleefully sacrifice everything for taking a moral stand against the slightly less worse party on this one single issue and then claim some sort of high moral ground and how they need to destroy the system via a revolution.
Of course, revolutions involve hard choices, in fact even harder than choosing who to vote in this election, and they also take more effort than getting off your ass and vote, so this revolution will probably never happen but that’s a tiny detail.
The real winners of course are Trump, his MAGA republicans (who, alongside ruzzian bot farms, promote the narrative that both sides equally bad on Israel so don’t vote Kamala) and Netanyahu as a proxy. I mean after all a president who moved the embassy to Jerusalem and actively encourages settlers is better for Israel than one who has surprisingly been less supportive even if still sending weapons and not really doing anything concrete to punish Israel, I mean Netanyahu has multiple times clearly stated he wants Trump specifically because it would make it easier to genocide Palestinians. Not to mention obviously all the other issues pike LGBTQI+ rights, women rights, not losing your right to vote, minority rights, Ukraine, climate change, etc etc those are all very important issues but a good size of these people never really gave a shit about them, in fact a sizeable portion probably doesn’t even give a shit about Palestine, they’d have happily sided with Israel if the US sided with Palestine, and just want an excuse to look morally superior or to promote a supposed revolution to gain power.
Exactly! Only single issue “Orange man bad” voters are morally good!
Trump’s hypothetical genocide is way worse than Harris’ real life genocide!
Moral superiority belongs to supporters of Genocide Harris who promised to build the Mexican border wall!
Three points:
- Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn’t stop reminding us of in everything but, “strangely”, not this subject) and isn’t even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump’s word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
- If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn’t much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it’s very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
- Some people simply put their moral principles above “yeah but” excuses and won’t vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.
In summary:
- Trump’s Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris’ is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
- A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they’re supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the “wrong” ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that’s the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it’s the least bad choice.
- Some people can’t just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn’t even a “choose a good thing” but actually a “choose a lesser evil”, and “Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies” is pretty strong as moral principles go.
It’s sad that no democrats are pulling to the left on the major foreign policy issues. Illian Omar said the best thing for Ukrainian children is to ensure that Ukrainian nazis can control regions they hate. Bernie has recently said that “Israel has the right to defend itself” even if he has also said a ceasefire is important. The only voice who would trade the demonic warmongering US empire for an extra hotel or two is Trump.
There is a real possibility that the person who would be best for Palestine would be Trump simply because he doesn’t follow through on what he says and is too incompetent when he does.
It’s a very sad state of affairs that the US Presidential Candidate that might be the least Nazi-supporting one is Trump, not because of his ideology not being Fascist but because he’s incompetent, inconsistent and has a tendency for non-interventionism.
It’s an interesting take. I believe he will just let GOP do project 2025 while he plays golf. He definitely hates muslims and other minorities to his core, and Israel gives him/family too much money to not commit to genocide the media fully supports him on.
Trump is in danger of GOP turning on him for impeachment. CIA/war/oil machine wants to keep the declining colonies they have left, and Ukraine permawar is recipe for that. $300 oil prices from war on Iran is a good thing for GOP. He’s still said out loud how he will be so unanimously loved that he will get a third term without a need for another election.
i agree mostly with you, even thought i’m a foreigner. i’d just like to point out that even though there are doubts about trump continuing america’s support of a genocide (and i believe he won’t have that much of a problem since both major parties in america support it), there’s everything else about him.
and also, everything else about the dems too. let’s just say that major lawfare campaigns against progressive governments here in latin america have been conducted under dem rule in the u.s… brazil and uruguay had their coups d’état orchestrated by the johnson administration. honduras, paraguay and brazil suffered lawfare coups under the obama administration.
- If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power.
If the Republicans get absolutely walloped in the election for running a wannabe dictator, it will show them that the extremism isn’t going to work and they have to run reasonable candidates to have a chance at winning. Then next election when they present someone who isn’t a megalomaniacal idiot who wants to be a “Dictator Day 1” it will require the Democrats to do better and put more effort than “not a dictator.”
Letting the Republicans be this close will cause the Democrats to move further right because the leftists aren’t going to vote for them anyway, and they sure as fuck won’t vote for Republicans, so moving to the right to steal 1000 votes from Republicans is better than moving left and gaining 1500 votes from people who otherwise wouldn’t vote.
Whilst the first paragraph does make some sense, it presumes that in such a situation the Republicans would not conclude it’s the style of the candidate rather than his ideas that caused the rout. That might be a little optimist considering that the traditional Republicans’ were just as far right economically before and almost as right in Moral issues, but they had a different style of candidate (remember Reagan?).
It might also be a little optimist to expect an absolute walloping of anybody, Republican or Democrat.
That said, it’s a valid scenario, though it relies on very low probability events.
The second paragraph is inconsistent with every single thing the Democrats have done in their pre-electoral propaganda, from the whole “vote us or get Trump” (something which wouldn’t scare the Right) to the raft of pre-election promises on Left-wing subjects like student debt forgiveness or tightening regulations on giants such as Telecoms a little bit. If they really thought they could win with only votes stolen from the Right, they would be making promises which appeal to the Right, not the Left.
Besides, the whole idea that Rightwing voters would go for the less-Rightwing party rather than the more-Rightwing party is hilarious: why go for the copy if you can get the real deal?
From what I’ve seen in other countries were Center-Left Parties totally dropped their appeal to the Left and overtly went to appeal to the Right, they got pummeled because the Maths don’t add up and, as I said above, Rightwing votes will choose the “genuine article” over the “wannabes”.
It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
Are you talking about nations with better electoral systems that can support more than 2 parties?
Yes, in a 3+ party system Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them but losing 1500 votes to Party C in the process is a bad play.
In a “Winner takes all” 2 party system where the only thing that matters is having 1 more vote than your opponent to have 100% of the power, Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them is a better position even if it causes them to lose 1900 votes from people who now won’t vote for either party. Moving further away from Party B to get 1000 votes from people who are refusing to vote is a losing position if it causes them to lose 501 votes to Party B.
In a 2 party system chasing the people who are actually voting will always be twice as good than chasing the people who aren’t voting.
You have it backwards: going after the natural voters of the other side in a two-party system is the riskiest thing you can do because the other party has a massive advantage with those voters which is an historical track record of telling them what they want to hear and them voting for it - rightwingers trust them on Rightwing subjects and are used to voting for them.
Even if (and it’s a massive massive if) a party succeeds at it once due to the party on the other side having deviated too much from its traditional ideology, all it takes for the party on the other side is to “get back to its roots” to recover most of those lost votes and subsequently win, whilst meanwhile the leftmost party that moved to the right has created for itself an obstacle in their own “going back to its roots” in the form of a section of the electorate which feels they were betrayed.
Sure, they’ll eventually get it back if they themselves quickly “go back to their roots”, but it will take several electoral cycles.
Further, if that gap remains too long on the Left even in a two party system it would create room for a third to grow, starting by local elections, then places like Congress, then Senate and eventually even the Presidency.
One of of the key ways in which First Past The Post maintains a Power-Duopoly is because growing a party enough to challenge the rest in multiple electoral circles takes time and the duopoly parties will try to stop it (generally by changing back their policies to appeal to the core voters of that new Party).
The US itself once had the Whig Party as one of the power duopoly parties and that exists no more.
The Democrats abandoning the Left is not a stable configuration for them and carries both the risk that the Rightwing electorate sees them as fake and the Leftwing electorate feels betrayed, and now they’re stuck in the middle with a reduced vote.
You’re saying if a party strays too far that another party can steal some of its voters, the party can “return to its roots” and get all those voters back.
You’re also saying if a party strays too far it can’t just “return to its roots” and get those voters back because they don’t trust them.
You are contradicting yourself. If Republicans suddenly become a rational party they’ll be trusted by rational people as much as if Democrats suddenly became a leftist party.
You’re also telling yourself: there’s no reason for the Democrats to move left because you’re not going to trust them anyway. If Kamala came out tomorrow and promised everything you were wanting to say you wouldn’t believe her or vote for her.
The fact is Republicans are going full Fascist, and there are people with conservative ideologies who don’t want fascism. That is why they will vote for a Democratic Party shifting to the right instead of the “original right wing party”.
Sure, creating a vacuum on the left increases the viability of a third party, but that’s not going to be viable this election so they don’t have to worry about it.
Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
Right-wing oned did the same tbh. In Poland socdem party went from nearly having constitutional majority (2/3rd seats) to complete obliteration and losing every single seat in two terms because they turning into center-right neoliberals (which alrady had their own party so nobody voted on them), but it didn’t make them any wiser, they still do the same neoliberal st. Vitus dance, though they managed to marginally return to mainstream since (on a leftwing promises which they didn’t even tried to do anything about it).
Ultimately the party which did the minimal bone throwing was protofascist PiS and this given them 2 full term in government because even tiny breach of absolute austerity policy we see since 1989 shocked people incredibly.
It’s a psyop
According to Kamala Harris, even black lives matter and the movement against police murder is a russian psyop.
You think the political system is going to someday learn it’s lesson and work for you?
Whoever is elected is our opponent, the sooner you all accept that fact the better. Doesn’t mean you should pick a tougher boss level.
Former democratic party strategist: I never had to listen to the left on any issue.
Israel has every reason to get Trump elected. Yes, BLM was heavily influenced by outside actors, could have been Russia, could have been a Republican think tank. Someone was throwing gas on the fire. There’s so many people with different agendas and it’s simple enough to use social media to sway people.
The genocide is fake. It is all Russian AI.
are you seriously going to vote for genocide? wtf? i hope you are a CIA/Israeli bot and not a real person
I’m not American so not sure I can vote, but I was I would absolutely be voting for the Dems, as the way it appears to me is Trump would be a lot worse for Palestinians than Harris would. This isn’t to say Harris will be good for Palestine, but if I tie you to a chair and tell you I’m either going to remove one of your eyes or both of your eyes and if you abstain I’ll take them both anyway.
I’m sure you would reluctantly choose to lose one eye and not both.
Trump has stated Israel is going to slow. So anyone bitching about the dems is an idiot, trump will be a lot worse than harris on this issue.
Yeah, but have you considered the electoral college? For most people, their vote for president doesn’t matter.
Yes, we love genocide.
Tap for spoiler
/s
Wow, it’s almost as if someone being bad can be for multiple reasons!
Yeah, for instance: funding a genocide, xenophobic immigration policy, building the wall, dropping the ball on covid right before delta/omicron, a lack of healthcare reform, the inability to protect abortion rights, being a cop, denigrating anti-genocide protestors, racially profiling Muslims at your events
inability to protect abortion rights
“I was robbed”
“I blame you more than the thief because you should have protected your stuff better!”
It’s not the democratic politicians who were robbed. It’s the democratic politicians who were complicit in us getting robbed of our rights.
It’s the Republican politicians that actually robbed you of those rights, and you are actively helping them get more power to do it again. Make it make sense.
So if one person is holding you at gunpoint while another rummages through your pockets, you should definitely only be mad at the one going through your pockets right?
If one person is standing by not doing anything while another person steals my stuff, I’m definitely going to be more mad at the person who actually stole my stuff.
If I am forced to leave one of them alone with my stuff I will make sure it’s not the stole from me.
How about: Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, going mask-off calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, ending the Iran nuclear deal, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”, spreading vaccine disinformation until one was developed before the end of his term, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matters were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, being an avowed friend of Epstein, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights (+ setting up the conditions that led to their erosion; see supreme court point above), and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened).
I guess he’s not a cop though, so there’s that.
(minor edits made for grammar/spelling)
The promise is that Harris is essentially a continuation of Biden so with that in mind comparing to your list above:
Similarities ✓ the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights, and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened)
Differences: X Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, being an avowed friend of Epstein, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”
They are faaaarrrr more similar than they are different as honestly some of the “differences” I’ve noted are just because the exact quotes aren’t the same, even if some similiarly spirit quotes have been said.
https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
Looks like the campaign has a whole bunch of things besides “orange man bad”. All there on the official page easy to find.
It seems like someone saying the entire campaign is “orange man bad” hasn’t bothered to listen to anything being said and is just focusing on the most salient point in a bad faith effort to discredit them.
“Be more than just orange man bad”
Here’s a list
“Kamala bad”
I thought we were asking for more than just “opposition bad”?
But if we’re going the “opposition bad” route find me a single item in that list that Trump wouldn’t make worse.
You know, the entire topic of the thread: even if Kamala isn’t good, Trump is significantly worse in every way, and one of them will be president.
This is really clever if you’re okay with convincing yourself that you know exactly and completely what other people believe… Otherwise it’s a reductionist hot take filled with logical fallacy.
In my situation, I’m in a solid blue state so I’m voting for a third party to push the country to the left.
Do you understand how voting works?
No, go ahead and explain it to me!
@rocci CGP Grey already did.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0WyZ8cfB1TxXa
STV! I’m in!
@rocci I want this as a poll format option in the Fediverse.
They were joking. Also CGP grey didnt cover things like how fptp is influenced by there being multiple branches of government, having the electoral college in the mix, etc.
While it’s a great video its overly simplistic to apply to america. While i believe fptp has to go. You absolutely can vote third party safely without risking trump if the conditions are right and they often are in the us there are few battle ground states where it’s higher risk
@jatone Every video and every model will be overly simplistic when applied to any reality. Every abstraction is a leaky abstraction.
Wow i never knew! Thanks! 🤯
Do you not understand how the Electoral College works?
Yes and your vote does absolutely nothing in “pushing” the country left. Who taught you that? Please do better research as the future of your country depends on it.
Sometimes being principled in your vote is a good first step towards doing something politically meaningful. Many liberals are chained to the idea that their vote is their political being. And then they go vote for genociders!
That first step of pulling at their chains can lead to further political education.
I would say you have to be the stupidest person on earth to vote 3rd party but I know that Magidiots exist.
You do nothing but enable genocide by voting 3rd party. A Democrat loss in November GUARANTEES the genocide continues. The Republican Party is the party of Israel and they would bend over backwards to give them whatever is necessary to bring back Jesus Christ
I would say you have to be the stupidest person on earth to vote 3rd party but I know that Magidiots exist.
Yep just big dum-dums that won’t support your genocider candidate. If only they were smart like you and supported 98% Hitler!
You do nothing but enable genocide by voting 3rd party. A Democrat loss in November GUARANTEES the genocide continues.
You know Dems are doing the genocide, right? And at the point where they have the most to fear from supporting it, they aren’t even pandering.
You’re the baddies, bud.
The Republican Party is the party of Israel and they would bend over backwards to give them whatever is necessary to bring back Jesus Christ
The Democratic Party is also the party of Israel.
It’s impressive that you’re calling people names while writing polemic that obviously applies to “your team”.
I am not a Democrat. At this point I’m closer to Independent because both parties have gone off the rails over that last decade. However I understand the importance of this election and I understand how our system works. Voting 3rd party does nothing but pull votes from Democrats. It happens EVERY election. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but voting third party doesn’t give you the moral high ground. It just makes you an idiot because not only will your candidate not be elected but more often than not you enable Republicans to win elections based on how our voting system works.
If only USA had ranked choice voting, then everyone could do that.
they put a lot of thought into our system; the electoral college was intentional and it’s doing it’s job very well.
it’s meant as a firewall to guard against poor people from getting sufficient political representation. our ruling class uses it today to keep this country conservative.
This kinda makes sense, I guess that means not a swing state (I’m not American).
Do you have to be in a heavy blue state to do this without fear that if enough people do this it will swing red?
Yes, exactly. If you live in a solid blue or red state, your vote is a drop in the bucket, so it won’t matter if you vote third party. But in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania… in 2016, the number of votes won by Jill Stein was slightly greater than the difference between Trump/Clinton. Ouch! Was it worth it? Did it move the country left?
the strategy definitely wasn’t worth it, but we’re doing it again anyways.
The country did move left under Trump and has moved right under Biden. While your logic on Stein’s influence is flawed, if your goal was to shift the population left you’re basically making an argument for voting for Trump in swing states.
While it sometimes feels like this, it’s because the vocal minorities on the side not associated with the current president are always the loudest political figures.
No, it is because liberals were agitated under Trump and were told to care about women, black people, abortion rights, etc, and mobilize to spaces where they could be recruited for political education. Under Biden, they feel a sense of normalcy and have returned to supporting the equally violent status quo.
Yeah it’s a strategy that would work in any heavy red or blue state, because there’s an absolute zero percent chance the dems lose my state.
