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.
Remember that in online spaces (and IRL in reality), there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts that will make claims to sway public opinions.
Good point. Although, I would question whether Lemmy is such a place as we really don’t have the numbers to warrant the effort, imo.
We get drug spam and stock spam, no reason to expect that political spam is any less likely.
Lemmy has a huge amount of hardcore lefty’s. If you can get them to not vote, and especially if you can get them to tell their friends not to vote, that is a big win.
Astroturfing/sockpuppeting is dirty cheap to do, so no reason not to try.
You do see some users here that will post continously on about a certain topic repeatedly, with no other opinions. They might be legit, but I have my suspicions.
“Hardcore lefties” have a very different understanding of the value of their vote, which is to say, it means very little.
Have you deigned to ask them questions?
It is not currently such a place. I’ve yet to hear a Lemmy admin say otherwise.
Russiagate conspiracy theorists want it to be true so they can simply dismiss voices that contradict their beliefs.
I’ve seen cryptospam, drugspam, generic adspam on here. Why would a political astroturfspam be a conspiracy theory?
It does exist. It just doesn’t currently exist here, and Russian/Chinese/Iranian bots 1) hardly exist at all and 2) so far have had virtually no effect.
The reason people are seeing
$evil_countrybots everywhere is because our own government and our own corporate media tell us they are everywhere, not because they are everywhere. The propaganda is coming from inside the house. They’ve spent the last seven years and who knows how much money trying to convince us of. They’re trying to manufacture our consent to censorship.They tell us what opinions are
$evil_dictatortalking points so we know what opinions to dismiss out of hand, and to see the people & organizations that express those opinions as malevolent foreign agents, so we never listen to them again. They’re training us to do some of the censoring for them.The first step is to understand the media and propaganda.
I linked upthread about this specific propaganda campaign, but since people don’t click links, I’ll copypasta myself.
- IT Pro: Cambridge Analytica models were exaggerated and ineffective, [UK Information Commissioner’s Office] claims
- Wall Street Journal: Mueller Doesn’t Find Trump Campaign Conspired With Russia
- Jacobin: Democrats and Mainstream Media Were the Real Kremlin Assets
- Washington Post: FEC fines DNC, Clinton for violating rules in funding Steele dossier
- Washington Post: Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters
- Jacobin: It Turns Out Hillary Clinton, Not Russian Bots, Lost the 2016 Election
- Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork
- Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal On the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.
- MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes
- Jeff Gerth at Columbia Journalism Review on Russiagate: Editor’s Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four
- Matt Taibbi: WMD, Part II: CIA “Cooked The Intelligence” To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016
- Chris Hedges: Why Russiagate Won’t Go Away
I disagree - it feels like Lemmy is seeing the same kind of shills that 4chan saw in the last several elections. These bad actors are trying to sway dems to vote third party or not vote at all “in protest” across many small and large online spaces.
Are the shills in the room with us right now?
Yes, in fact I see one now.
Interesting. What am I shilling for? What are my real opinions? What are the fake ones I’m presenting?
Your real opinions are the ones I like, and your fake opinions are the ones I don’t. It’s not rocket surgery.
Obviously a huge genocide isn’t enough for you - you clearly want Every Palestinian to be killed or imprisoned when Trump is elected. And not just the ones in Gaza, if I were a Palestinian in the US, I’d be terrified of that madman winning, and I’d do everything I could to support Harris like my life depended on it (because it very well might)
More generally you are trying to convince us that the genocide is the only important issue in the world, and that it’s somehow worth not supporting someone who is in all ways (not just all other) the far better of the two electable candidates.
Obviously a huge genocide isn’t enough for you - you clearly want Every Palestinian to be killed or imprisoned when Trump is elected.
Please do your best to act in good faith and not lie about me.
And not just the ones in Gaza, if I were a Palestinian in the US, I’d be terrified of that madman winning, and I’d do everything I could to support Harris like my life depended on it (because it very well might)
No, that is what you, a non-Palestinian, believe you get to decide for Palestinians, people who have lost half or more of their family in the last year. The Palestinian diaspira, generally speaking, rejects Biden and Harris.
However, you have not answered my questions.
More generally you are trying to convince us that the genocide is the only important issue in the world, and that it’s somehow worth not supporting someone who is in all ways (not just all other) the far better of the two electable candidates.
Now you are downplaying the magnitude of genocide. Never again means never again for anyone, not just when it is politically convenient for you.
Welp, looks like you didn’t answer my questions. Maybe next time, right?
It’s literally the worst crime in the world.
Davidgro out here trying to minimize the literal worst crime in the world for political reasons.
takes no effort with modern technology
yeah, mostly CIA and Israeli bots/paid posters. all of reddit is astroturfed. All social media is controlled by the feds as well. Look into the twitter leaks to see how they do it. Mintpressnews also has great articles about feds in censorship positions in all these social media companies ranging from Facebook to TikTok (100% CIA controlled btw).
Is there any evidence of these CIA/Israeli bots / paid posters?
If somebody makes a pro-Israel post, maybe they just genuinely support Israel (I wouldn’t say that’s my view currently - I think both Israel and Hamas are wrong because both have killed civilians).
Edit: your downvotes aren’t evidence.
Who has killed more civilians?
By multiple orders of magnitude?
This is like “Man, I don’t like the sun and light bulbs, they’re both so bright.”
Ideally I don’t think any civilian deaths should happen, so they’re both wrong. I’m not going to say Hamas is somehow better because they killed fewer people. To me that seems like saying “oh you didn’t kill too many people, that’s fine then”. Which would be completely wrong in my view.
They also don’t have systemized rape and torture camps paid for with your taxes.
By any quantitative value system, Hamas commits less evil than the state of Israel
Comparing them is as useful as comparing the relative brightness between the sun and a lightbulb. The two sides are not comparable. One is committing genocide. Trying to gloss over that fact is propaganda trying to cover up the fact that we’re paying for the weapons doing the killing.
Yeah I’m not into the whole “let’s excuse Hamas” thing. In my view killing civilians is bad, which is why I think both Hamas and the Israeli government are bad. Neither should kill civilians at all - not 1, not 100, not 1,000, etc.
Good job responding to something I didn’t say to try and discredit what I did.
Don’t think that goes unnoticed.
I’m not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith, didn’t read my response very carefully, or are stupid. I’ll go with the middle one to be generous.
I don’t excuse Hamas. I don’t control Hamas, and much more importantly, I don’t pay for the weapons that Hamas use.
I pay, or rather my country pays, for the weapons that Israel uses to bomb apartment building, schools, and hospitals.
Hamas has killed somewhere between 1000-2000 civilians in this conflict, and that is being generous because we know that a large number of causalities were from Israel enacting the Hannibal directive and intentionally killing their own to keep them from being made prisoners (If Israel gets to grab 11,400 West Bank civilians without trial or due process and call them prisoners, then Hamas gets to do the same). Furthermore, if we count anyone who was in the IDF or the IDF’s military reserves as active military, then the number of civilians goes WAAAAY down. Remember that the IDF considers the trashmen, police, and hospital administrators as active combatants with Hamas affiliation. So, once again, if that is the standard that Israel is setting then it applies to all parties, including Israelis.
Israel, by all best estimates, has killed somewhere between 100,000-200,000 civilians. That is between 5% - 10% of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF GAZA. In all honesty, the number is probably higher.
That is completely ignoring the systemized rape and torture camps that Israel has set up, and the Israeli media discovered. Also, something that there is no evidence that Hamas has set up.
Acting like those two numbers are equivalent, or pointing out that Israel is quantitatively a minimum of 2 orders of magnitude worse, or that the two sides are the same is either stupidity, or evil. Take your pick.
None of this is justifying Hamas. It is pointing out how much more fantastically, cartoonishly fucking evil the Israeli government is.
You should ask yourself why you view the above as justifying Hamas. You might discover something.
Yeah like all of these people out here telling me to vote for genociders. There’s no way that real humans would think so little of Palestinian lives, right?
Right?
And who, of those who aren’t mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn’t about to help Isreal with their genocide? Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn’t Biden, it seems hard to imagine she’d be much worse than current administration on that issue. One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.
Suppose you have two buttons. If you press one, it kills someone. If you press the second, it kills two people. If you don’t press the first button, someone else is eagerly waiting who will press the second. Whoever has placed the buttons here, has enough power that neither the buttons nor the other person are within your personal ability to harm at the moment, and you have neither the time nor the popularity to amass enough people to change this before the other guy pushes the “kill two people” button. Your only options are to press one or press neither and allow the second be pressed. If your answer to this scenario is “I press neither button, because pressing the first kills someone, don’t you care about people’s lives!?”, then you are not choosing morality, you are choosing selfishness, because you care more about the notion that your hands will be clean than about the net life saved if you press the button that kills fewer people. In fact, the blood is as much on your hands by inaction if you decide to reject your choice, as it would be had you killed the additional victim yourself.
You know how you can trick a stupid fucking child into doing what you want by presenting them a false choice of two alternatives you’re happy with? “Do you want to go to bed now or after one more show?”
So what are the other choices?
Just because you can’t stop something doesn’t mean you have to participate in it. But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships. And it’s not like there’s not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences…
Not voting is a choice. You can’t not participate in politics.
You can chose not to vote for a party actively committing the literal worst crime in the world.
But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships.
We are discussing voting, though. That’s a bit tangential, because you can vote or not vote and still commit acts of… resistance…
And it’s not like there’s not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences…
If you otherwise would have voted Dem against the Republicans, who are as bad or worse when it comes to the specific issue you’re punishing the Dems for, you are hurting one group committing genocide by helping one who commits and wants to commit even more genocide.
All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left. But if the Dems lose to the VERY right wing party, if the voting shows that Americans favor more right-leaning policies, they would move to gain the votes of the people who actually voted.
The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice. As long as you are an adult who can legally vote in the US election, you are partly responsible for the results of the election. You don’t get to wash your hands of it. Choosing to abstain because you don’t want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness is saying your soapbox is more important than the lives affected by your choices, from the Palestinians to the Ukrainians, immigrants to LGBTQ. Nobody is more important than your ability to say “I didn’t vote for a party that commit genocide.”
All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left.
Don’t project your dumb shit on me
The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice.
wooooooooow no shiiiiiiiiiit
You mean I’m exercising agency right now? You don’t saaaaaaaayyyyyyy.
Choosing to abstain because you don’t want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. “Virtue signalling” you say?
You’re a nazi. You’re giving material support to the perpetrators of a genocide. You’re trash. Diminishing basic morality as a vice just like any other fucking 8chan fascist. Trash.
Smirking fucking nazi invoking “the lives affected by your choices” and “washing your hands” like the worst crime in history isn’t hanging behind you as you say that shit.
You’re fucking trash.
The difference is that there are real, material differences between the actions the candidates take. It’s not a fair choice, but it isn’t false either, and choosing not to go along won’t give you a better outcome
The difference is that there are real, material differences between the actions the candidates take.
NO THERE FUCKING AREN’T. And if you believe that, you completely went to brunch when Trump left office and don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
I can say the same about you. Putting “no there aren’t” in all caps and adding profanity and personal insults doesn’t make it more true, but it does make people remember that a block button exists for the kind of person that uses things as disgusting as a genocide as an opportunity to troll. I do not think that anyone who both has paid any attention to the past 8 years and is arguing in good faith can possibly support that conclusion.
Deeply maddening watching people who materially support genocide complaining about people “playing the genocide card”
And you think there’s a difference between you and the fascist party?
You’re literally simping FOR THE WORST CRIME IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMMIT!
It’s not a card.
It’s obvious you would use the same style arguments as a Democrat in the 1880s.
Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn’t Biden, it seems hard to imagine she’d be much worse than current administration on that issue.
What liberal brain rot is this?
Biden is fully engaging with his policy of genociding Palestinians. Harris has said that she will carry on with the policy with absolutely no change.
The fucking dissonance you people walk around with is astounding!
And before you come out with the usual other shit floating around your vacuous head, no, I’m not advocating voting for the shitty pants trust fund rapist.
You people cannot seem to grasp that what is being done in the Levant will be done to you. The DOD had just updated it’s rules so they can use lethal force against you.
It’s coming and you’ll are too fucking partisan to realise that you’re turkeys all voting for Christmas!
having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.
Current dead baby count would disagree
And who, of those who aren’t mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn’t about to help Isreal with their genocide?
When you are offered two candidates and both support genocide, including one being an active part of the current one, you can say, “no, never again means never again” and work against both rather than pretending you now have to support genocide.
Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn’t Biden, it seems hard to imagine she’d be much worse than current administration on that issue.
You should believe your lying eyes and see that Biden has gotten your consent for genocide, with Harris helping. The genocide has only ramped up as the election draws close.
There is not worse that can be done. It is full, unequivocal support for basically anything Israel wants for genocide including the weapons and supplies on which they depend to carry out this genocide. If anything, Dems are more effective at this kind of thing, as they secure European support and offer better stipulations to the Israelis around when to escalate and when to play it a little cooler.
Though your electoral logic is seld-defeating anyways. Your consent for the lesser evil keeps you politically anemic and unable to have solidarity with those who need it. You make yourself subservient.
One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.
This is a fantasy.
Suppose you have two buttons.
I am not interested in childish metaphors.
If you reject the lesser evil, and all options possible to you are evil, then you by inaction support the greater evil, which, by definition, makes you evil. “Working against both”, when evil is inherit in all means by which you might do that work, is a fantasy you tell yourself to justify sabotaging efforts to limit the damage by practicing and encouraging what effective amounts to surrendering one of the few levers of power that you have any limited ability to pull.
I already addressed your lesser evilism logic. If you want to continue this conversation you will need to respond to what I say and not dither and repeat yourself.
I am repeating myself because the notion that the least evil option available is the best one, that the lesser evil if you will is preferable to the more evil one, is axiomatic, that is, it’s a basis one takes when constructing a moral framework, not a consequence of one that can be reasoned through. If you do not agree with someone’s moral axioms, then there is simply nothing to debate, you and they are simply operating under mutually incompatible definitions for what is and is not the right thing to do. Restating that in a slightly different way is a way of testing if the axioms we are operating under are truly different, in which case further argument is pointless, or if we merely misunderstood eachother the first time around.
Your problem is one of timeframes.
You might, though I personally don’t think so, be right on a single election time frame.
They’re definitely right on a timescale spanning multiple elections.
Right now, you are forced to vote for someone committing genocide because people kept choosing the lesser evil in previous general elections, and the party cheats in the primaries.
The situation you’re in, right now, disproves your argument.
I await your response to what I said. I’m not interesting in watching you masturbate.
You live in a fantasy and sabotage real effort to limit damage in the real world. You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.
“You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.”
you guys need to be a bit subtle in the gaslighting effort. where was all this anger for her supporting innocent kids being burned alive. go shout at her rallies to stop being a genocidal two faced hack. else you all are trolls trivialising an ongoing genocide and enabling future ones.
Show me any examples of them limiting damage
The effort to limit damage in the real world like advocating for a genocider?
Also, please do your best to act in good faith and not make things up about people.
I genuinely have a death wish for all of you white supremacist motherfuckers that keep trying to frame being against genocide as a selfish cause. A lot of people are coming out of the closet as fucking nazis right now.
If both of them support genocide, but one also supports banning abortion, the ethical choice is to vote for the one that won’t ban abortion.
If you’d rather wait until a candidate arrives that agrees with you on every issue, that’s fine, but you’ll probably never vote, and in the meantime, by not voting, supporting whichever candidate you like less.
While there’s no honor in the presidency, there is honor in doing what you can to reduce harm, and if you can’t reduce harm to the Palestinians, at least you can reduce harm to American women and girls.
Never again means never again for anyone.
Trying to lesser evil genocide makes you complicit.
Repeat after me: “I am against genocide and will not vote for genociders”.
So you hate women and don’t want them to have bodily autonomy? You see how that sounds? It’s the same logic as your argument.
In what way is that the same logic as my argument? I am not voting for misogynists.
Removed by mod
The comprador government of the West Bank is just that, compradors. You should care about the people who live under a comprador government, yes.
The government of Gaza is led by those taking direct militant action against their genocidal settler colonial invaders. They fight and die alongside their people.
Removed by mod
I never said I didn’t care. In fact I care very much.
From Merriam Webster: “one” example: “you never know what will happen”
Hamas is a terrorist organization. Lets not pretend that they’re some force of good.
Hamas is a Palestinian resistance organization against apartheid settlers that routinely use and used extensive terrorism. While the Zionist entity bombs residential blocks, schools, and refugee camps, the axis of resistance, which includes Hamas, focus on military targets and building if leverage for their own liberation.
The term “terrorist” is used selectively and in a racist way. When the Western Imperialists like a resistance organization they call them freedom fighters. When they dislike them, they get called terrorists. The ANC, including Mandela, were similarly labelled terrorists in their own fight against apartheid. Similarly, the Americans supported apartheid in South Africa and its mainstream political adherents gladly adopted their white supremacist framing.
In conclusion, there are two terrorist groups fighting, and the civilians of both groups are suffering for it.
Sorry you’re afraid to engage with what I said. You’ll get the courage of your convictions someday. Might want to stop sharing your onions until then, sport.
Pray tell, which elected leaders?
Removed by mod
They’re both not elected anymore and a resistance organization. They were elected on a platform of not-exclusively-peaceful resistance (peaceful resistance inside Palestine and especially inside Gaza was render impossible by Israel by 2006-2007, so their resistance activities are now exclusively violent). Resistance activities are supported by the population of Gaza, even if many don’t support Hamas specifically. If your point is that October 7th implies they don’t care about Gazan lives, that’s patently false. If that’s not what you meant, then explain what you mean by “they don’t care about Gazan lives”.
There are, but not on Lemmy, because Lemmy is still much too small to bother with.
Funny, good one
Are you a Lemmy sock puppetry expert? Because I am.
Which Lemmy admins are saying there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts? Because I haven’t heard any.
There is the occasional spammer or corpo shill, who is quickly dealt with, and that’s about it.
Are you a Lemmy sock puppetry expert? Because I am.
Oh wow, a real sock puppetry expert! That’s so amazing, can I have your autograph to show to my children?
Buddy, I admin lemmy.ml. I do know a thing or two about the Lemmyverse.
Oh, that certainly explains your answers.
Go ask admins of other instances then.
Spoken like someone that has never been an admin of anything.
There are ways to observe sock puppets solely from metadata that the admins have access to without even looking at the content of the posts.
The admins are literally one of the few groups that can actually, quantitatively, state that there are few sock puppets.
Fucking brain broken if you think the bots are on the side opposite entrenched power
Majority of the people who are saying this are Arab-Americans. They know how bad Trump will be, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Biden back in 2020. Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they’ve become numb and just stopped caring. There have been repeated instsnces of Democrats actually silencing them from speaking up as well. They’ve adopted a scorched earth mentality and are deciding to send a giant “fuck you” to Harris and the entire Democratic party.
And the Democrats are also allowing Israel to do whatever they want. There’s not much of a difference between the two on this topic.
There is a difference between them on this topic.
If Trump were in office now, every liberal here would be screaming for the genocide to end and trying to understand how anyone could let this happen.
With Biden in office and his VP as candidate, they are trying to sell you on their candidate rather than working against the genocide.
I’ve actually seen some Muslim American leader (not sure who, maybe the mayor of Dearborn?) saying something like this. At least with Republicans in charge democrats would need to oppose them instead of gleefully supporting the genocide. Not sure how much this logic checks out, but it’s a thing I guess.
The logic definitely checks out. It was far easier to mobilize and educate mainstream liberals under Trump. They have gone to sleep under Biden and become fully accepting of what the administration does. They might say they don’t approve in a poll or something, but get them to leave the house? Only the college students can be mobilized at this time.
this is strangely true? but I can see the feds (who control the media) pivot narratives again where trump is still bad, but what he’s doing is okay because (hasbara such as beheaded babies & mass rape claims, false flag, atrocity propaganda). feds aren’t very intelligent. they do the same shit over and over again.
Yeah, the first time the press core deigned to call him “presidential” was when he launched rockets at Syria. The second time was when he assassinated Suleimani.
I think assuming that people are completely accepting of what the administration is doing, even when they try to voice their opinions in polls, is in bad faith. They simply don’t feel they have the option to not vote. In any other democratic system I genuinely think a third party (greens?) would have a good chance to win this election, but the two party system is so entrenched (at the minimum in the minds of voters), that to not vote is seen as the functional equivalent of voting for the other side.
I’m not in the US so my opinion doesn’t really matter, but I do think that political discourse would be much more productive if people would stop talking past each other and dismissing the motivations/logic of the opposing side.
In any other democratic system I genuinely think a third party (greens?) would have a good chance to win this election
Checking in from Germany. We have a parliamentary system and ~60 of the population is against the genocide and only ~30% are pro-genocide. And this despite a continuous pro-genocide propaganda by almost all media and politicians. It honestly is batshit insane what the german media is becoming. The whole discurse they produce is basically directly restating IDF statements.
But 90+% of the parliament is pro-genocide. Only one fraction (BSW ~1,4%) is strictly against the genocide (but are assholes in other topics) and 1 fraction is divided on the issue (Die Linke ~4%). Our green party is the most stringently pro-genocide party.
It is honestly really hard to not completly lose trust in democracy itself right now.
Bourgeois democracy has always been like this. It presents itself as representative of the people while using a massive array of capitalist-controlled apparatuses to call the shots. Media, jobs, capital strikes, education materials, think tanks, threats to the government. Their first line of defense is “democratic” institutions with enough structure and hurdles to prevent popular will from directly having influence. And, of course, vigilantes and organized right wing thugs when the former don’t work.
I think assuming that people are completely accepting of what the administration is doing, even when they try to voice their opinions in polls, is in bad faith.
Polls happen because paid pollsters call people and do surveys, then compile the results and format it into something consumable for research, entertainment, or propaganda purposes. Polls are not a reflection of what people care about, they reflect what a few hundred or thousand people answered some questions on a Tuesday.
Polls do not tell you what anyone really cares about, because anyone can say they care 4 out of 5 stars even though they won’t leave their house to do anything for anyone else over a 3 year period.
To get people to care, you have to educate them and provide them with a pathway to build power. That is actually the opposite of what these self-appointed genocide salesmen are doing, where the lesson they teach is, “suck it up and vote for the genocider, you are stuck with what was chosen for us”.
They use the same line every time, just with different issues of the day. It is a focus-group-tested way to convince people that otherwise have a conscience that it is okay to check that little box for that sociopath and hey, “why not tell others to do the same? And maybe even start saying they are wrong and bad for not pushing the sociopath as well. And sure, the whole party is full of such people and they only really listen to capital, but also this is your chance to have a voice.”
They simply don’t feel they have the option to not vote.
So you should tell them that they don’t have to vote for any genocide, just like me.
In any other democratic system I genuinely think a third party (greens?) would have a good chance to win this election, but the two party system is so entrenched (at the minimum in the minds of voters), that to not vote is seen as the functional equivalent of voting for the other side.
Uh-huh. Still shouldn’t vote for genocide, let alone tell other people to. It is bad to normalize genocide. Do I need to tell you this? Did you not already know?
I’m not in the US so my opinion doesn’t really matter
I disagree. You are free to develop and share any informed position about any country. And sharing informed opinions is helpful.
but I do think that political discourse would be much more productive if people would stop talking past each other and dismissing the motivations/logic of the opposing side.
That would be nice but it is not exactly a balanced equation on that front; all it takes is for one “side” to be racist and panicking for it to all go off the rails. Such as what is happening right now. Every other reply to my “don’t support genocide” schtick is someone simply making things up and guessing and avoiding what was said. This is because the people who reply are the ones who get the most defensive about their personal morality being questioned, i.e. someone did not accept their support for a genocidal candidate and how dare someone do that to them.
Unfortunately this is literally the only way to agitate. You have to unseat and challenge with a truth that disagrees with the prevailing wisdom. The people that reply will act like absolute pieces of shit at first, but there will also be an audience where some of them go, “huh, that is a good point” and there will be others that start out defensive but then digest and read and move in a better direction.
Finally, you cannot understand societal behaviors without looking at the realities of motivations and tendencies. We are not all independent agents with tabula rasa brains, we are a product of our societies, and yes sometimes those societies are racist and teach you to devalue the lives of, say, black people and brown people and people overseas. And if you cannot recognize that and call that out, you will have a false understanding of how to tackle injustice.
provide them with a pathway to build power
If I understand you correctly, then I very much agree, but I don’t see this happening very much. On one side I see people saying “vote for the lesser of two evils, and then we can focus on changing the system/changing the democrat policies” without actually any clear idea how to do that. On the other side I see “don’t vote for either party, neither major party deserves to win” without any clear idea of how to give any realistic chance for a third party to win.
It is bad to normalise genocide. Did you not know this?
Here again you are using bad faith tactics to dismiss the idea that people in favour of voting might have valid reasons to, instead presenting it as if these people think normalising genocide is a good thing. This is divisive and not constructive at all.
All it takes is for one “side” to be racist and panicky…
Yes I know how quickly controversial discourse can go downhill, but to be that seems all the more reason to not allow our arguments to disintegrate, even if the other sides are.
You have to unseat and challenge with a truth that disagrees with the prevailing wisdom
I definitely agree, I think all widespread “truths” should stand up to scrutiny, but my point is about the way this is done. Challenging a truth/point of view should mean approaching the logical base of that view, and presenting an alternative with reasons why the alternative is better. But so often I see people ignoring the logical base of the other side’s viewpoint, and instead creating straw-men to attack instead, or simply just dismissing the other side entirely through one tactic or another. To be clear, this is done by all sides, I see many people dismissing the argument to vote as simply being “supportive of genocide” (which is obviously ridiculous), while people dismissing the argument to vote third party as being “stupid/ignorant” or other things to that effect, which is also obviously false.
Like you say, we are all products of our societies with different values, but the vast majority of people are reasonably smart and have good intentions. And dismissing people is not a good way of “calling them out”, it only causes further division and makes them even less likely to be receptive to your ideas. If you cannot see the reasons for someone’s beliefs (even if you strongly disagree with those reasons) then you stand very little chance of changing their mind.
If I understand you correctly, then I very much agree, but I don’t see this happening very much.
It happens all the time on a per-organizer basis if you actively do it. The left is currently small but has the capacity to rapidly snowball if it is principled and follows good practices. When you recruit 10 people per year per organizer and 2 of them become organizers, etc etc. And these things will come in waves if you make yourself known and build capacity for onboarding. One year it’s 10 per organizer, the next it may be 50.
My organizations experienced rapid growth under Trump and in Winter-Spring 2024 due to us actively doing work.
On one side I see people saying “vote for the lesser of two evils, and then we can focus on changing the system/changing the democrat policies” without actually any clear idea how to do that.
Yes this is just a line, they don’t really man it. They can’t even say what their goal is most of the time. They just say “push left”, leaving it vague. And of course they’re really telling you to stop making demands when you have the most leverage, to then give up that leverage by pledging to be a guaranteed vote then make their demands when they have the least leverage and gave already proven that they will vote blue regardless.
This line is repeated constantly because it keeps empathetic voters contained and powerless while also gaining some votes for their monstrous candidate.
On the other side I see “don’t vote for either party, neither major party deserves to win” without any clear idea of how to give any realistic chance for a third party to win.
Why does the third party need to win? There are many other outcomes to shedding the false consciousness of lesser evil voting. At the moment, I am highlighting liberals normalizing genocide. One outcone is to recognize that this “democracy” is a genocidal sham and you need to work against its underlying forces. Another is to effectively boycott so as to demonstrate illegitimacy of who is elected, which has a long history. Another us to begin creating a voting bloc that doesn’t ounch itself in the face every 4 years and actually makes demands with a credible threat. That voting bloc would also eventually fail because again, this “democracy” is a sham, but those people can then be organized against the genocidal status quo.
Here again you are using bad faith tactics to dismiss the idea that people in favour of voting might have valid reasons to, instead presenting it as if these people think normalising genocide is a good thing. This is divisive and not constructive at all.
It is not bad faith, it is the truth. Treating genocide like a typical lesser evil you have to accept is normalizing it. It was, allegedly, a red line, and now liberals are falling over themselves to erase that line.
This revelation probably makes you uncomfortable, but it is not false or unfair. You can see it throughout this thread. They try to avoid the topic at first, then speak euphemistically. Try asking them to say this: “I am against genocide and will never vote for a genocider”. Can you say that?
Yes I know how quickly controversial discourse can go downhill
“Controversial” my ass, I said they were panicking and racist. So much for “good faith”, eh? Don’t whitewash my framings and pretend it is what we are talking about.
but to be that seems all the more reason to not allow our arguments to disintegrate, even if the other sides are.
You are being so vague that I can’t even tell what you are recommending. This topic is something you brought up, trying to both sides communication, and what I am telling you is that there is a verifiable imbalance.
I definitely agree, I think all widespread “truths” should stand up to scrutiny, but my point is about the way this is done. Challenging a truth/point of view should mean approaching the logical base of that view, and presenting an alternative with reasons why the alternative is better.
Incorrect. That is fine for internal strategy discussions among people that agree with one another. It is absolutely terrible media and discursive strategy.
There is not a logical base for most political views. That is usually a rationalization for more basic feelings, like status, security, whether you are a good person, whether the bad people are getting what they deserve.
But so often I see people ignoring the logical base of the other side’s viewpoint, and instead creating straw-men to attack instead, or simply just dismissing the other side entirely through one tactic or another.
Because it isn’t about the logical base. I can present concrete facts and demonstrate pure logical contradiction in another person’s arguments and they will simply deflect. Their ego gets in the way, an ego taught to them by a society where having an opinion is important for status and self-worth and every disagreement is about destroying the other side. They will lie, deflect, insult, say racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic things. Having revealed that they have no logical base and are just Himmler Lite, any pretense that you are just going after logic and debate will undermine you and become a trolling session for them.
These are not the people you are trying to reach anyways. It is the audience at the borderline that need that, “oh shit my side is racist and I reject that” kind of push. Again, not about a logical base.
To be clear, this is done by all sides, I see many people dismissing the argument to vote as simply being “supportive of genocide” (which is obviously riduculous)
It is not ridiculous you are literally voting for someone doing a genocide and telling other people to do the same. Despite your complaints you have not addressed the clear basis for this claim and are doing that thing right now: deflecting through dismissal built entirely on sentiment, not any logical basis. I should not need to explain to you that “I am voting for a genocider and so should you” is a pro-genocide stance. But your discomfort in your complicity, the threat to you feeling like a good person, means you need to start dissembling.
while people dismissing the argument to vote third party as being “stupid/ignorant” or other things to that effect, which is also obviously false.
The people dismissing that are repeating canards handed to them by their faction of the political class. They are only needed insofar as the person returns to feeling like they are good and smart for voting for a genocider. You can watch them fall apart in real time when you try to discuss their alleged “logical base”, like discusing game theory and electoral strategy. They were not actually convinced to vote that way because of simplistic half-understood electoral math, they were convinced by allegiance to a political program that aligns with their idea of being a good person. And as bourgeous morality goes, they will then start making personal moralizung arguments, and then they must be reminded they are voting for a genocider.
Then we come full circle and they fall apart. Repeat ad nauseum.
Like you say, we are all products of our societies with different values, but the vast majority of people are reasonably smart and have good intentions.
Not true. Intentions are not inherently good when the society that crafted them is racist, genocidal, misigynist, etc. Being the product of conditions means the dominant intention can be oppressive and violent. With education they could acquire good intentions. If raised in a less oppresser society, they could have good intentions. But you don’t get to whitewash the bad intentions of those shoring up violence and oppression, including genocide. Those are not good intentions, they ar self-serving corrosive behaviors learned from their social circles.
And dismissing people is not a good way of “calling them out”, it only causes further division and makes them even less likely to be receptive to your ideas.
100% incorrect, certainly when it comes to media and fronts, which is more like how social media operates. The most effective means of agitation is direct callouts, particularly when it comes to reactionary positions that need to be made socially unacceptable.
The person receiving the callout will get defensive, but they do that anyways regardless of how you frame the problem in what they are saying. But now they get to coast by and pretend to be in the right and the audience will also miss this. Over time, that defensiveness can and does lead to change, where many go and do some research and come back in a few months as if they had always held a different position. Online, they might just make a new account. I’ve seen users bullied for their transphobia do this repeatedly, they got less transphobic over time but were still recognizably the same user.
If, on the other hand, someone is already sympathetic and not oppositional, they will let you know this early on. The main thing they will do is commiserate and ask questions. These are the people you can gently correct as they are not just trying to reaffirm their biases - such as to the white race and whose suffering they care about - and status as a good person by retaining them.
If you cannot see the reasons for someone’s beliefs (even if you strongly disagree with those reasons) then you stand very little chance of changing their mind.
Buddy I have recruited more people than you’ve ever talked to online.
That’s the thing. I see a more likely scenario where the genocide is hindered under Trump. Not because Trump opposes it, but because it would suddenly become fashionable for liberals to oppose it.
If anyone hasn’t already lost their Israel-colored glasses, they’re not coming off.
I think they would continue staying hone, this time out of spite, until Trump ramps something up and they are given permission to care by their political class, who would attempt to coopt the the pro-Palestine movement while still being explicitly Zionist.
Hes gonna genocide better than harris, he guarantees it
There is nothing more you can do to a people beyond killing and expelling nearly all of them.
nah trump is gonna suck at genocide he’s all talk
If the election were between Trump and somehow someone even worse who was calling to nuke the entire area and turn it into glass, then I would absolutely be pushing for Trump. Shockingly, if we are trapped in a horrifying, dystopian version of the trolley problem (which we are), I’m going to make the choice that causes the least damage.
Using another analogy, if you have a badly broken arm, you can either set it and try to keep it immobilized, or you can let it stay how it is and all but guarantee that it gets fucked up even worse as it heals wrong. Voting third party is like saying “I don’t like either of those options since they both involve my broken arm, so I choose to pray to the Moon Goddess”. There is no option that immediately stops your arm from being broken. You can delude yourself and say the Moon Goddess will magically fix it, but in reality, you are choosing the option that does nothing and makes it worse. Choosing to set your broken arm doesn’t make you “pro-broken arm”, it’s just the only practical choice given a terrible situation.
If the election were between Trump and somehow someone even worse who was calling to nuke the entire area and turn it into glass, then I would absolutely be pushing for Trump.
It does not get worse than genocide. The habit of inventing a hypothetical bigger and harder gun to hold to marginalized peoples’ heads doesn’t work on this one.
Shockingly, if we are trapped in a horrifying, dystopian version of the trolley problem (which we are), I’m going to make the choice that causes the least damage.
We are not trapped in a trolley problem. You are a human with agency. You can join organizations, you can educate, you can take action. Reducing your political agency to a lever pull for genocide is a helplessness taught to you by the political class because they just want you to vote for them even when they commit genocide right in front of your eyes. They want you to think of Palestinian lives as strategically expendable and that you are actually smart, not racist, for toeing that line. And your compliance with their demands is exactly what ensures they can shove any monster down your throat as a candidate. Harris is complicit in genocide and didn’t win a single primary but Dems say, “well, time to fall in line”. Dems strategists know that “progressive” Dems do this so they do nothing for them in policy, they just deploy PR goons to vote against every 4 years. Compliant voters enable their own irrelevance.
Though of course, voting is very limited and there is much more to be done.
Using another analogy
I refuse to entertain analogies justifying genocide.
Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they’ve become numb and just stopped caring.
The craziest part of this to me is that this isn’t the first time this has happened since it’s started like… since the country has been founded. So the fact they’re really still willing to engage politically at all is a pretty good testament to their character, I would say.
This was all laid out in 2020 and we said the fight wasn’t over. We said even if biden won the dems will never be, ‘good enough’ because we all remember Obama. Objectively the best president of my lifetime and catches shit on a number of issues. The dems won’t ever be good enough. The fight can’t end until people learn that politics doesn’t stop when a presidential election is over.
Joe Biden should have been primaried. I said it for 4 fucking years. I will say the same about Kamala. She needs to actually win the fucking primary.
That doesn’t change the course, though. No amount of moral posturing is going to ignite a fire in out despondent electorate. You want a government that works for you. Participate.
See, doing it as a bloc with public visibility I can see. That actually has some chance of swaying at least the rhetoric. But I still think if they actually go through with not voting, they’re voting against their own interests. The right is rabidly xenophobic and loves Israel, the only thing Trump will do to end the genocide is send even more military support.
They believe that taking a moral stand against the Democrats, who are supporting Israeli genocide, is worth it even if that means that Trump, who even more fervently supports Israeli genocide, becomes president.
Describe “even more”? In what specific material ways would trump increase support for Israel?
nice hasbara
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.
I honestly appreciate the downvotes as a counter of angry people shamed into silence
Good. You should be fucking ashamed.
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.
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.
Lol, living in a world where “anti-genocide” is actually a thing people say is messed up.
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.
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.
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?
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 think that despite the appalling amount of equipment already being sent to Israel, a country with the resources of America can absolutely send a fucktonne more if it chooses to. Or it could start actively bombing in its own right, like it did in Yemen.
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 (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). 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.
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
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.
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.
Single issue voters just seem to be the excuse of Democrat party for if they lose.
Just like election fraud is of the Republican party.
doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
And what if they seem equally likely to escalate the situation?
Trump says he’ll let Israel finish the job. Kamala says she disapproves of what’s happening in Gaza, but will always support Israel and will always provide them with weapons.
Same fuckin’ thing.
I voted for Harris, but I feel like it’s pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.
One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I’m not saying “is” here. I’m saying “should be”.
We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there’s value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.
And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu’s whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.
For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It’s not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!
Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that’s not something we can do everywhere. We can’t repeatedly choose the “least miserable” and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It’s just not possible.
Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can fight for. They need to be able to say, “on this hill, I fight for what should be rather than what is.”
Some people’s hill is their ballot.
The vote should be for someone who can get enough electoral college votes to win in the first place, and from there the one who is more likely to listen to public pressure, as well as the same for any congressional seats on the ballot. And probably not vote for the one who is threatening to send the military after those who disagree with them.
Which as a non-American seems to be Harris, right?
Yes, Harris is the only realistic option. Anyone voting for Trump is a Nazi in the most literal sense of the word.
If the people voting for Trump in the most literal sense of the word then they wouldn’t support Israel.
They aren’t supporting Israel because they care about the Israeli or Jewish people. They’re supporting Israel because they love blowing up brown people, with an unhealthy dollop of trying to bring about the apocalypse
For a vote, yes. I can’t even imagine what Trump would do with the situation given another chance. Some may say the same thing as the US has always done, which is one of the problems that will need to be addressed regardless of who wins, but Trump also likes dictators, so support would probably be bumped up even more for Netanyahu.
The vote should be for someone who can get enough electoral college votes to win in the first place
I like how Americans casually mention we’re not a democracy and everyone’s just okay with that.
