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.
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.
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.
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.
Lol, living in a world where “anti-genocide” is actually a thing people say is messed up.
I think is actually kind of nice.
I mean of all species living on earth, human is the only species that would consider genocide a bad thing. Some random plant on prehistoric ages would just produce oxygen an cause a mass extinction without sweating it.
And for most human history Humans would actually try to genocide others.
At least now there is people who is anti-genocide. And it’s probably a growing stance.
Humpback whales have been seen interfering with killer whales that are attacking seals or dolphins. Maybe they don’t see it as “genocide” as they don’t have a concept of the idea, but there is at least some evidence of another species upset at, and willing to stop, the killing of another. I think by that logic, if they could understand the concept of genocide, they would consider it a bad thing.
I certainly doubt it. They would probably just be protecting themselves and their own kind.
If a humpback whale have experiences of killing whales attacking them or their offspring probably thought it was a good idea to do as possible to interfere with them. Probably would carry a genocide on orcas giving the chance.
I don’t think it is out of mercy. Mercy is something that is learning growing in a better environment that any animal growing in the brutal natural world.
deleted by creator
I was always confused by the polcie criminalizing antifa. So fascism good, anti fascism bad these days? Genocide is the same. If you are anti genocide you’ll be brutalized.
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
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.
You can reject the fucked up premise, and find you still live in a reality that doesn’t give a shit. In reality there are two outcomes to this election, and just a smidge of knowledge of game theory would show it doesn’t make sense to help the worse side, both in the short and long term.
I hate that we have 2 options, I hate that there is no ‘no genocide’ option. Me hating that shouldn’t cause me to make worse decisions with clearly worse outcomes for everyone
The critique of the trolly problem isn’t that you don’t still make the choice, it’s that the outcome was predetermined before you even got there.
Leftists who are making a point of abstaining are doing so to point out that voters have no control over the trolly to begin with - that the choice is artificial because the outcomes were pre-selected by someone/something else to ensure a particular outcome, and that participating in that choice only ends up legitimizing that process.
The no genocide option is to protest against the current regime instead of vote shaming people who probably don’t even live in a single swing state (where your candidate brought Liz Fucking Cheney btw).
There is no “No Genocide” option. There only Same Genocide with Harris and More Genocide with Trump.
Do you even hear yourself?
Do you know the reality of our electrical system?
every post about this topic we have one person saying its the trolley problem, and starting a digression based on that, and one person saying its all first past the post voting, and starting a digression on that. The uniformity of the pattern of distraction setting is pretty suspicious.
deleted by creator
And then the trolley cross track drifts and murders six people while the third party voter feels smug and self-righteous about ‘doing the right thing’.
The time to prevent the construction of the trolley, to prevent people from being kidnapped from their homes and tied to trolley tracks, is every time other than the election, so your election options are the ‘Not Murdering People With Trolleys’ group.
During the election, you minimize harm.
And for everything else, you push for improvements.
The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.
You need to care before the trolley is barrelling down the tracks.
The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.
So why do establishment liberals ignore the demands of progressives until it’s time to suddenly demand their votes?
Because you’re cherry picking people to be “establishment liberals.”
Bernie sanders exists. AOC exists. Etc etc etc
What cherry was allegedly picked in the comment you replied to?
AOC is somehow not an establishment democrat??
“She is working tirelessly to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing the hostages home,” the Squad member said Monday night in championing Kamala Harris for president.
I’m point out establishment liberals that ARE listening to progressives, or are progressives themselves.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Democrats making obviously winning plays? You cannot be serious.
They are intentionally bad at politics. Their greatest skills are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and shitting and falling back in it. Wanna see how for yourself? Dig into the DNC. They’re not a political entity, they’re a corp. And they work for the interests of corps. If what they do occasionally isnt absolute shit its almost entirely incidental.
Thanks for the elaborated comment! Don’t mind the negativity around the replies, some ppl are so simple they will hate until you literally say ‘Harris good, Trump bad’.
I’ve recently seen a nice description of that - “peasant mindset”.
People who are not ready and willing to peacefully discuss reality with literally anyone, and most of all marginal and weird viewpoints, like sovcits and antivaxxers, because those are more interesting, - have that “peasant mindset”.
(I’ve found something like that in my head too this morning, so sharing the thought.)
Aggression is a sign of fear, and fear is something we feel when we are not ready to change our mind if we get some good arguments, or when we get bad, insufficient arguments, but are pressed to change our mind anyway.
Why can we not be ready for that, feel powerless before that possibility of deciding to think differently 5 minutes from now?
Because there’s something that we follow like a peasant follows their master. It’s the assumed identity, the family, the group, the party, the state, the nation. Such a decision, and a decision to discuss reality preceding that, is an act of defiance toward those. It’s a conflict, and we as humans sometimes try to avoid conflicts. It’s like discussing orders. Only there’s not a single soul above us who is entitled to order us how we vote or how we think.
Every decision worth making is destructive, everything new comes in the place of something old and something that could be, there’s nothing to fear.
Changing one’s mind by a conscious decision after careful consideration is a sign of having personal dignity. Not changing one’s mind in the same situation is too a sign of having personal dignity.
Keeping your head down and trying to eat anyone not in line is not.
(too long again)
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
You’re missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.
Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn’t mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.
You simply cannot count votes you never had.
There are far more people that don’t vote than there are conservative democrats. In fact, non-voters are the biggest chunk of population in this country. Instead of courting the center conservative voters, wouldn’t it make more sense to target non-voters with policies that have been proven to be widely popular?
People like progressive left-leaning policies. Streamlining the citizenship process for immigrants is popular. Fighting price gouging is popular. Not supporting genocide is popular. It seems like getting the couch potatoes excited to vote would have more beneficial results than trying to attract conservative democrats with unpopular neo-liberal conservative policies.
Classic progressive defeatist mantra: you’re not left enough so fuck you. Bring on the fascist.
The anti-genocide people have drawn a line in the sand and decided to stick to that principle. I think it is pretty reasonable to have lines you do not cross with genocide being a pretty understandable one. These people have decided, “if you use our tax dollars for genocide, we will not vote for you”.
You are asking them to, “ignore the genocide stuff and focus on the good stuff”, but unlike Biden, these people have red lines they will not cross.
If you don’t want fascists to come into power, then the Democrats should stop doing fascism-lite. I think it is reasonable for people not to support fascism-lite. They should indeed move further left away from the fascism they are barreling towards.
Stupid take. Genocide light is better than genocide on steroids. Netanyahu wants Trump to win so he can go in and show you what real genocide looks like.
Do you even hear yourself?
100%. And you are either a Russian/Chinese troll or worse, an idiot that think a dictator wannabe is better than a moderate.
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.
Except the genocide is actually happening with their support
She’s campaigning on building the wall. she’s endorsed by dick cheney and 200+ reagan and Bush admin staffers. we have sent more aid to Israel in the past year than we ever have since Israel was invented. she has stated that her support of Israel is iron-clad. the current admin has broken records for the amount of oil and gas extracted extracted in the past 4 years. she has refused to voice support for the trans people who are supposedly going to be protected by her admin. she has kicked Palestinian people out of her campaign events, while instead parading around Richie Torres, a person who famously has stated multiple times that Palestinians deserve their eradication. her policy page has removed all mentions of medicare for all and paths to citizenship. she has promised to make america’s military the most lethal fighting force in the world.
she has decided that the “moderate conservative” who will never vote for her is more important than all the progressives and leftists who probably would’ve. just like Hillary Clinton and Dale Earnhardt, she’s going to crash into a wall because she can’t turn left.
The fact Dick Cheney, a war criminal along with Bush Jr. and her ‘graciously’ accepting of it, is not sending massive warning horns and bells to the average Dem, OE to her own campaign should be enough to see they have lost their own plot. They are out of touch and just screaming, orange man bad, does not fix their own problems. Many people are not enough of a blind ideologues to not see that.
They are pushing for Trump’s border wall. Like come on.
Democracy : Very bad choice versus very very bad choice
Democracy : a vote for the system versus a vote for the system
Democracy : a thin facade hiding a genicidal monstrous death machine that claims to speak for us all
Hint : is it really democracy after Edward Bernays ?
Time to overwrite the government and take out the trash
And if you’re in this position where you see this all as fact, then what is the alternative?
IMO there is none.
Trying to rebuild the system at the time of an election is the wrong time. You have two options - because that is the reality you live in (right now).
Work on building something better AFTER the election, change the system, fix it for the future. But for NOW, you get a choice. Not voting (in this system) is a vote for ambivalence, and you dont seem like the person that doesn’t care.
But importantly, work to change the system later. You have valid concerns and the system you are in is broken, but you can make a change.
Edit: to not be misconstrued, I agree with the issues at hand that you’re highlighting. I’m just saying that the alternative is worse and that is a likelihood in this reality no?
Always time later right? Later never comes though does it.
And all of this concern was here before the election, its only getting attention now because during election season is the only time it has an effect.
People just blow off protestors during the non election season. Why? Because they don’t have to bargain with them, they have no power then.
They have no power because they believe they have no power and dissociate. Self fulfilling prophecy. All the power in this country comes from the people. It’s a fact.
deleted by creator
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the democrats chances of winning are being hampered by this issue.
deleted by creator
Seems like your tactics has been ineffective. I mean especially when you consider trump taking office and unleashing only terrible shit that a addled minded fascist would want.
After election protests were shot at, broken up and arrested. Election is the only way to change how stuff is today.
I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It’s easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that’s harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris’ Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.
I’m still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.
The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/
Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel’s genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.
Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don’t see that from the Democratic administration.
Despite Trump’s horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It’s not logical, but it’s hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the ‘lesser evil’ doesn’t work when the ‘lesser evil’ is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He’s using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.
Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.
Quote
Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.
- Split Ticket (July 2024)
Quotes
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
- New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters (Full YouGov Report) (May 2024)
Quotes
- Data For Progress Poll (May 2024)
Quotes
Quotes
Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.
Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.
Beautiful write-up, thank you!
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.
Then maybe there is other stuff you care about?
You’re getting one of them. There is no third option.
If you don’ care about the other topics at all, then don’t vote.
Yeah, I care about stopping Trump from building the wall-
Hold on a second, I’m getting some new information
There is no third option.
There is a third option.
Please enlighten us? Just a hypothetical or a realistic one?
It’s so real that its on my ballot. There’s even a fourth and fifth option. And a write in option with an infinite number of possibilities.
Hypothetical then.
You can vote for whoever you want. But you will get one of the two.
Voting for someone else is basically the same as not voting. Sure you make a point, but the result will be the same.
Like I said, if there is nothing else you care about, vote for Pedro or whatever.
If you’re saying that you shouldn’t vote unless your candidate has a chance of winning, you might as well tell every Democrat voter in a red state to stay home on election day.
I don’t think it even makes a point, but it will salve their conscience, allowing them to firmly believe they stood against genocide while actually doing nothing more than this token gesture that at best has no impact on anything.
If 10% voted for some third party that would make the headlinds.
And be drowned in the rest of the election news and one of the two would win anyway.
I never understood the intense laser focus some people put on one policy. There’s so many to care about if you’re American. People are dying from homelessness, starvation, guns, and mental health every single day but the only thing you care about is overseas? That’s not even mentioning things like a woman’s right to dictate what happens to their own body.
Those homeless could have homes if the billions of dollars stopped going to propping up genocidal regimes and the military industrial complex
Oh sick is Trump campaigning on that??
Oh sick is Kamala campaigning on that??
Answer to both: no. So maybe we should use other factors to decide!
Are you equating something monumental like a genocide with some thing trivial like school vouchers? Maybe you should consider that some issues are more impactful and important than others.
The democrats are incapable of solving those problems…
I’ve at least heard plans to help with them instead of concepts of a plan
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.
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.
Where was he invited?
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.
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.
The USA has several legally binding treaties etc promising military cooperation with Israel. Harris isn’t allowed to break them legally. Any change to this would have to be passed by the house and senate. So it genuinely doesn’t matter what Harris or anyone else wants.
Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?
https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
Under federal laws, the US Department of State has a policy prohibiting weapons transfers when it’s likely they will be used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.
In February 2024, Veterans for Peace sent an open letter to the State Department and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, invoking these laws and policies, urging the termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.
Removed by mod
USAID already reported Israel is using hunger as a weapon. Which very much qualifies.
Removed by mod
No. They are absolutely not allowed to stop food and aid into the combat zone they created. They are absolutely not allowed to prevent Egypt from sending aid in. They are absolutely not allowed to conduct a naval blockade.
Russia is food secure and has trade access all along Central and East Asia. Norway’s closure is in no way the same thing.
When the professional aid distribution people who work for the United States Agency for International Development tell you it’s happening, then it’s happening.
It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide.
Okay… if its a war crime and not a genocide, that still qualifies as a way to stop sending weapons.
They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country.
Huh wonder if maybe Palestine should be legally recognized as a country to prevent this? Oh well, nothing we can do, since the politicians in power don’t want to do that.
But I don’t think that it can be proven especially seeing as the official government statistics coming out of gaza are provided by a group that is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation.
Every organization operating out of Gaza would get called a terrorist organization by Isreal. It is almost as if America is being intentionally obtuse to allow Isreal to carry out a genocide.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:
-
Killing members of the group
-
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
-
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part
-
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
-
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
A short list of official allegations of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians (Google):
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent the destruction of evidence and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel’s use of the “Hannibal Directive”
Israel has been accused of using its “Hannibal Directive” policy, which allows for the killing of Israeli soldiers and civilians to prevent them from being taken alive as prisoners of war. This policy has been criticized as a form of genocide.
UN reports
UN experts have reported “grave violations” committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, including “genocidal incitement” and the use of “powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts.” They have also cited evidence of Israel’s intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation.”
Special Rapporteur’s findings
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has found “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. She cited evidence of Israel’s intent to destroy the Palestinian group, including causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and preventing births within the group.
Amnesty International’s research
Amnesty International has gathered evidence of unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, resulting in mass civilian casualties. The organization has criticized Israel’s failure to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, leading to indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes.
Other reports and allegations
Various independent reports and allegations have been made about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including forced transfers, torture, and the destruction of infrastructure. Some have characterized Israel’s actions as genocide, while others have criticized the use of the term without sufficient evidence.
-
This is already missing the point that if Harris is not elected, Palestine will be gone. Hell, everyone everywhere in the world will suffer under Trump
Easy. If Trump wins, that picture will be Israel and all Palestinians will be dead and gone.
Ding! Ding! Here is the correct answer.
I’m beginning to think that liberals and lefties have no clue how government works and they want a strongman/dictator as much as the magahat idiots. They just want one that aligns with their beliefs instead.
The POTUS is NOT all powerful and can make what ever decisions they want. Controlling the house and senate is far more important than whoever is living in the White House. The House and Senate writes the laws and checks to pay for everything. AND they ratify the treaties making them formally binding.
If you want to stop the genocide, elect the people in the house and senate that will effect the actions needed to make it happen.
Waiting several election cycles to end a genocide is insane and there is no world in which that is the moral, ethical, or logical path forward. Hope this helps!
But it IS the process to get it done. I never said it was ideal. If you don’t like the process, then vote for those that WILL change the process. But that takes time. Until then, we ARE stuck with the laws we currently have in place. That is the reality of the situation. I hope this helps you understand representative democracy vs a dictatorship.
Okay, nobody I can vote for will change the process. Now what?
Also dictatorships, monarchies, etc. pretty universally have some form of petition process as well, so not actually a difference…
Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship. See: North Korea or a few countries in the middle east. Imagine trying to petition the Afghani government as a gay or worse, a trans person.
Governments of any kind are large and ponderous beasts. They cannot change direction as easily as you would like. And like it or not, there are rules and processes that must be followed to make changes. And those things are in place to provide continuity in government and protections to the populace at large. Imagine how much more damage trump could have done without those processes and rules. Imagine what he could do if he wins again after the last SCOTUS ruling.
Like it or not, Biden is bound by a lawful treaty ratified and codified by congress a long time ago. He cannot undo that treaty on a whim. Only congress can do that at this point. Make your changes there. And representatives and senators are local elections and not national. Best of all, YOU could be the change you want. Don’t expect someone else to do it for you.
Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship.
You’re so close to getting it…
DPRK trivia- the dprk has universal suffrage and secret ballot. The highest authority in the country is the Supreme people’s assembly with 687 representatives.
US trivia: the US prohibits itself from arming governments credibly accused of significant humanitarian crimes, but then turns the other eye when it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge significant humanitarian crimes.
Like during the genocide in Palestine, where Biden keeps shipping weapons and Blinken has been told to or chosen to keep his eyes closed and his ears stuffed with cotton while his subordinates keep bringing reports of Israeli crimes.
You know you can communicate with your current senator and representative right? Representative is literally their name, they represent you, if enough people apply pressure to the point they think their job is at risk, they will often magically have a “change of heart”.
they represent you
Are you 8 years old?
I’ve actually worked in politics, the amount of people that find it easier to give up because the system is deeply flawed instead of actually doing the hard work of change is astounding. If you want things to change, you have to make your voice heard on something more than lemmy. Representatives nearly all want to keep their jobs. If you show them your motivated enough to contact them, it shows them it’s important enough to you to sway your future vote. I’ve talked to many representatives in my life, at least on the left they generally see their job as representing constituent interests. If enough pressure is applied, they will often change their vote/introduce legislation, etc.
But they are not on lemmy getting the political temperature from keyboard warriors with more snark than braincells.
The thing that keeps their job more than voters is donors. Hope this helps!
They aren’t mutually exclusive and both involve the same thing. The only reason money matters is because it is used to sway voters, people showing they are not swayed by the propaganda invalidates the money.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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 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.
This isnt the first time the whole lesser of two evil bs has been done in an American election. It happens everytime. Biden said hey i may suck but atleast i wont put immigrant kids in cages! Then he kept the kids in cages and now democrats run on mass deportation policies 4 years later. Trump might say worse things but the actual effects of him being in office wont really be different then if Harris wins. If anything Harris winning will show them that being pro-genocide worked and theyll be pro even more genocide going forward.
Its just not an accurate assessment to say “Well Harris is slightly better so shouldnt the choice for her be obvious?” Because she isnt better. She just puts a better face on the exact same genocidal policies. The only difference is that Trump doesnt pretend like he feels bad about it when gazan children are slaughtered and openly admits he is a maniac. Biden publically tells Israel dont do this thing then they do it anyway and the media plays it off like Biden is just incompetent and cant stop it. But the reality is its all fake. Hes saying not to do it publically then privately green lighting whatever they want to do. They arent going against him at all hes just putting on an act for people like you. Its what the entire “International Law” that applies to the enemies of the US Empire but never applies to the US or its allies has always been. An act put on by liberals to pretend they arent evil so people who have empathy will still buy in to the system.
There is no such thing as Democracy in the US. As someone more clever than me once said:
“America only has 1 political party but in classic American opulence they have 2 of them.”
The only reason America has election is to give the illusion of consent to the governance of their population. The whole “We the People” thing is nonsense and not real. Its a Myth just like the American Dream is a Myth. Work hard and youll make it! Its all bullshit and it always has been. Vote, dont vote, it doesnt matter. The Empire will still demand blood.
This isnt the first time the whole lesser of two evil bs has been done in an American election. It happens everytime.
Every election that I can remember, and I can remember as far back as Carter vs Reagan.
and the amazing part is both the parties do it lol. Kamala is an evil communist whose gonna take your guns and kill babies if your a Republican. And Trump is a dictator lover who is gonna overthrow democracy if your a democrat. Its funny how 2 people who are ideologically alligned in almost every way possible are framed as being the opposite end of the political spectrum in US politics.
Every election is also the most important election of our lifetimes.
