Once you are under dictatorship, you can’t vote to hold anyone accountable. Vote for Trump and you won’t have a say in what happens to Gaza. Or anything else.
yea, but you get to brag to all the other inmates in the political prison yard that you stood up for your principles by not voting!
They’ll be in the same political prisons as their primary enemies, the classic liberal Dems.
LOL i can’t wait to get in fistfights with them
Fuck the fist fights, I’ll be playing human shield with their corpses while I sneak out in the cadaver wagon.
Oh Lemmy. Don’t ever change ❤️
Am I allowed physical violence to the purported leftist idiots who land us there? I’ll piss on their cracked skulls while reminding them we have the same values but I’m practical and trying to survive to fight for them.
Oh hey everybody, it’s the toughest guy on the internet! What’s it like being so damn tough?
Yeah. I’d be enraged at someone for putting my family in an internment camp. How odd of me.
Impotent male rage on the internet is both the funniest and cringiest thing to me. Nothing happens quite as drastically opposite as it’s intended effect as this shit man. I’m here for it.
You’d fight us but not Republicans because we destroy the notion that you’re the good guys. You both want to preserve the status quo, with libs preferring marginally less grotesque methods of enforcement, and superficially opposing the fucked up methods Republicans prefer to employ. Good cop vs. bad cop routine, and you hate us because we’re pointing out that the good cop wants us imprisoned too.
Let’s be real, in actual prison, you’d be making aliances with the skinheads and guards 15 minutes in, then call on them to do your dirty work instead of doing any fighting yourself.
Same dynamic you’re employing right now actually: “Fall in line or I’ll sic the Republicans on you!” while fantasizing about the left getting sent to the camps for daring to oppose your brand of status quo preservation…just like Republicans, but less honest about your intentions.
Dipshits of both lib and fash varieties fail to recognize themselves as allies in defence of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy, yet somehow you always instinctively know who is more important to fight, the left.
The SPD voted for the concentration camps the KPD died in. Same dynamic will play out here.
You defended Biden for not closing the migrant camps, understanding that you would never spend a second inside one. We opposed them the entire time, not caring that they’d eventually be used for us.
Smart fascists understand how useful your brand of performative opposition is to legitimizing the system that keeps the treats flowing, so even if they throw did your ass in prison to appease their base (they won’t), you’ll be let go. You’re too useful an idiot for keeping the real opposition (communists) from taking power.
I deleted a long personal rant. Tldr I’ve spent decades fighting the right. I am the left. I never fought “the left” until you useful idiots showed up in numbers. Only outcomes in reality matter. There is an objectively better reality for the 99%, out of our two options. Yelling and screaming, and opting into this victim role in an internet stranger’s hypothetical about a group responsible for the end of society…dude wtf? Why does that have to be you? Just don’t do that to us and you’ll have nothing to be defensive about Same victimhood porn as the right.
I’m not as enthused as you to vote for a system where innocent civilians have to die for political convenience, sorry. My morals say that killing is wrong, and I don’t like it.
LOL you guys never fail to illustrate my point in less than 5 minutes
If your point is “some people think that killing is wrong”, feel free to consider your point proven.
His point is that some people think killing is so wrong that they’ll actively advocate for a course of action that will kill waaaaay more people.
You value your own moral purity over the lives of other people.
That’s his point.
deleted by creator
And you’ve got harris with full control over where the trolley goes, and a working set of brakes. So its not the trolley problem at all.
You’re choosing between “lots of people being killed” vs “LOOOOOOTTTTTSSSS of people being killed”
Based on your own morality you have outlined, ethically you would choose to vote Kamala then, as under her far far fewer people will die.
Removed by mod
No demon at all has created it; other humans have. You aren’t the sole person responsible for responding to it, but your actions will contribute to what happens next, non-action included.
You can say that this kind of situation implies someone else has done something wrong, leaving you holding the bag, and you’d be right, if nobody had done something wrong, we wouldn’t have a genocide to talk about in the first place- but saying that leaving you holding the moral bag was a wrong thing to do doesn’t change the fact that you are now holding that bag, along with all the rest of us. And about half of us (referring to the people of the US as a whole), if you haven’t noticed, have every desire of causing even more harm. “Neither” is simply not an option when failing to choose the least bad thing will result in someone else choosing the worse one. It’s not fair, it’s repulsive even, but the universe does not work in such a way as to ensure only fair moral choices exist. Morality is a thing we invented, the world doesn’t care about conforming to it.
Getting the best outcome you have with the bad options presented you matters more than whether or not you feel your own personal hands are clean- because metaphorically clean hands will not save the people of Palestine, and likely would doom some, and others elsewhere, that could have been saved. A clean feeling conscience bought by leaving people you could have helped to die is little more than a delusion of innocence.
What do you think about China’s Uighur genocide?
Show me a single dead Uighur. Show me any evidence at all.
Lemme guess, the only evidence you’ll be able to provide is either:
- Adrian Zenz’s “research” or media citing it.
- that single picture of the Kashgar inmates watching a drug awareness presentation.
- testimony from some person in Uighur World Congress (who are such a puppet of US dept of state that they cant even have solidarity with fellow Muslims in Palestine by recognizing their genocide) saying they have missing family members.
Tell me:
- what purpose does this genocide serve China?
- how does China prevent any evidence at all from getting out? Is their great firewall more effective than Israel knocking out every cell tower and cutting all ISP lines? Why can we see that genocide despite Israel spending billions to stifle info getting out? Are Uighurs that much more afraid of retribution than the Palestinians who know they will be martyred for fighting back?
- why did Muslim majority countries not unite to denounce this “genocide” like they did Gaza? Did Xi bribe them all?
- where is the satellite footage showing the infrastructure needed to carry out an industrial scale genocide? Why isn’t the US coming forth with it if they have it?
- do the Han Chinese hate Muslims? If so, why aren’t they also genociding the Hui Muslims who are much more divout?
- why does Xinjiang have more mosques than all of Europe if they hate Muslims enough to kill off its least devout followers?
- why UN inspectors came and found no evidence of genocide. How come the report has nothing more than “human rights abuses” (the most severe of which also occur daily in US prisons, who won’t allow inspections from international bodies.)
You are just another dog of the US State Department. Israel thanks you for your whataboutism to diminish the severity of their very real, US funded genocide. Muslims everywhere appreciate your valient efforts to protect a Muslim group from an imaginary genocide.
There is no genocide that I agree with.
Removed by mod
I’m voting so the state doesn’t kill my sister if she has complications in her pregnancy.
That is good. I would also like to be able to vote so the state doesn’t send weapons to enable one country to kill innocent people in another. Some of those people dying are sisters, and their siblings feel much like you might when they are without them.
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide.”
I’d like to do that too, but sadly that’s not on the ballot this year.
Only way I see our way out of these situations in the future is ranked choice vote and abolish the electoral college so 3rd party candidates are actually viable. I’ve been donating to fairvote.org and joined the forward party for that reason, but in the meantime I can only help damage control while I wait for the calvary of rcv.
Removed by mod
Thanks, as a person with a trans gender identity, this really helps me to understand that nothing will change, because fear and oppression will be utilised to force people to rationalise harmful actions as inevitable.
A trans gender identity? That sounds like a broken English interpretation.
It’s a fucky word construction, but it’s correct and in wide use. Transgender and trans are different concepts. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Hey, I’m autistic, queer, and an immigrant. You can hate me if you want, plenty of people do.
My gender identity is trans. I’m also ethnically Ukrainian. Feel free to assume I’m Russian because I’m different to you. That’s what human society does, create ougroups and scapegoat them. I try to avoid doing it, which makes me an enemy of those who do, because I say impossible things like “can we not kill innocent people?” For practical purposes, that will not happen, and asking for it is naive.
I know that. But, although impractical and naive, that does not stop it from being the morally correct outcome. My autism shows itself in a very strong sense of justice, and I find justice to be more important than practicality.
How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn’t magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don’t hate you either. I can’t say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn’t you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?
as a person with a trans gender identity
I’m gonna go ahead and stop you right there chief. Transgender people don’t write “transgender” as two words. Big “as a black man” energy here, cishet loser.
Our posting buddy’s fucky word construction is correct and in wide use. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Also, if you’re still reading, please also add to your lexicon the absolute gift that is “cissie.”
As a non-binary person who is under the trans gender umbrella, without being transgender in the sense of having transitioned across genders, I am careful with my language. I am not transgender in the way people typically understand.
Feel free to participate in non-binary erasure, I’m used to it. Humans love creating outgroups so they can bully each other, that is why I find myself not labelling myself as human. I think gender is stupid, and I think humans are rude.
Removed by mod
Not voting is a choice as well. A choice that will make it so that your voice will not have an impact on whether the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less. Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care about those whose lives are being threatened, the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
A great Canadian philosopher once said “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!”
deleted by creator
Maybe these people who are choosing not to vote are explicietly voting to end our system of government. Much the same way the far right is doing, but for different reasons.
Honestly my ideology on it is the same as my parents and my grandparents, and even my great grandparents ideology.
I don’t care who you vote for, what you vote for, or your reasoning’s for doing do.
But if you refuse to vote, regardless of reason, you lose any say in complaining about what happens as a result, as you actively did nothing to help prevent it, meaning you have no right to bitch about the outcome.
the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less
The most infuriating thing about you nazi motherfuckers is you still have the fucking gall to believe you’re better than the other side
Not voting is a choice as well.
Yes, but I don’t have any other choice, myself.
Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care
No, it’s an announcement that I care so much about innocent people dying that I am morally conflicted about being asked to be part of a political system which condones it.
asked to be part of a political system
But, you’re not being asked. You already are. You don’t get to pretend you’re not, just because you didn’t give your permission. This isn’t an opt-in situation.
And I get that maybe you feel that isn’t fair, and I agree it isn’t. Just like none of us asked to be born, none of us asked to be part of society either. But we are, and we have to deal with that now.
They don’t have a choice, because Samvega is not an American citizen. They are a troll and they only thing they do is say the same exact comments in every post. Don’t bother engaging with them.
Even a non American citizen has a choice in this. If they aren’t American, they can’t vote, but people that can vote can be influenced by the words of others (otherwise, such trolls wouldn’t exist, after all, they’d have no point), and someone outside the country can still choose what to say.
I’m not really convinced that foreign operations are terribly active on a platform this small, or that these people truly are such an operation, but if for the sake of argument they are, and the user in question happens to be one, I’m not sure that non-engagement actually helps. “Don’t feed the trolls” is standard advice for dealing with traditional trolls, that are just out to make people mad and will move on if ignored. But a person being paid to shape the narrative isn’t going to just get bored and quit, they’re going to keep doing what they’re paid to do, and people are at some level influenced to align with ideas that they think are popular among the people around them, so letting them make a bunch of uncontested arguments still lets them shape a narrative through volume.
On a platform like this, that doesn’t have engagement algorithms that will boost the words of someone you interact with, I feel that it makes more sense to drown out trolls of the foreign kind, so that others who see them get the impression that what they say is not popular. One just has to keep in mind, if one truly believes that one is arguing with such a person, that your goal in arguing is no longer either to refine your ideas or convince the other person of yours, but to convince other people who see the argument of them.
Hey friend what happened to your account? I wanted to see how you were doing after the election. Stinks that you’re not here anymore. Hope you’re doing ok.
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
I cannot cast a vote in this election.
It doesn’t take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.
This isn’t about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I’m going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.
If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it
How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.
but I live in the reality of the viable options
Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve ‘innocent people are dying right now’. This bothers me.
If it’s the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say “The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse”. You’re saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?
Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.
Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.
My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can’t radically accept the world and your life, it’s going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it’s entirely appropriate to be angry that isn’t an option, but it isn’t the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn’t available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn’t been that black and white for a long time.
Not sure why you’re acting like you can vote on this in the first place
I’m acting like someone who is saying that they do not accept killing innocent people as a viable part of a political process that will make the human world better.
So you want more death, got it. Abstaining from voting for the lesser evil is a choice, and you’ve made it. Blocked.
“In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” - Trump
If Harris wants my vote she should at least try the bare minimum to get it. Her campaign wouldn’t let Palestinians endorse her at the DNC. Her entire message to our community is; we make no promises at all but Trump is worse. That’s no comfort to those in my community who had relatives die in bombings by US-supplied weapons. “Trump didn’t kill my relatives. Biden did.”
Why is Harris so bad at this outreach? All she has to do is make some bland comments and it would win more people over, and she can’t even do that because she thinks being a hardliner against our community will win over a few Republican votes. Clinton tried that in 2016 and it failed.
Right so people should vote Green to hold Harris accountable while they still can.
Exactly! Because when she loses and Trump wins… Hey… Wait a second…
Darn you are correct. We should not hold politicians accountable after all. Please downvote the person above me who suggested it.
We can always hold “we’ll organize and push her left after the election” people accountable. If they’re honest, then more people will organize, big win. If they’re not, then they’ll be so ashamed that they make new accounts.
“Gaza is not the only issue” should not be the takeaway here:
“Even on this issue [Gaza], Donald Trump and his right-wing friends are worse,” Sanders said in the six-minute video, which he posted to X. He noted that Republicans have fought to block humanitarian aid to Gaza and that Trump — who has praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — has suggested Gaza would be a great site for beachfront development.
Yeah, when framed that way, it’s a reminder we’ve had to vote for compromise all along… And it’s fucking fine and we have a mostly functioning society.
And it’s fucking fine
This is part of the problem with America. Centrists are so self centered that they will condone mass murder of nameless masses to keep their personal gravy train rolling.
I’ve literally led protests against genocide and violence. You don’t know me. You people look for places to grandstand and project your defensiveness because you’re either a bad actor or you know deep down your idealism is wrong.
I’m not a centrist. I’m a pragmatist survivor. The opposite of privilege. Academic bullshit costs lives. You don’t know my values besides this one comment.
It’s not fine. It’s such a privilege on your part to claim that the status quo is lovely. I’ve been to funerals for people who had their relatives die in Gaza. It’s tearing apart the community watching bodies of Gazan children on social media and Harris saying she wouldn’t have changed a thing.
Protest voting doesn’t work when the candidate you are protesting is the least worst option. Democrats that will not vote out of principle have been conned as badly as MAGA republicans. End of story.
I think you might be on to something. Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting? I mean, it does deliver two right-of-centre parties to power, over and over again.
Where the wheels are coming off is that one of them - and some people say both - are moving further rightwards, and this is destabilising society in America.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
It absolutely is set up that way. This may or may not have been the intent of our election system, but it is the outcome.
I think there may be some conflict in the interpretation of “set up”. When you say it was “absolutely” set up that way, keep in mind that many if not most would interpret “set up” to definitively include intent.
Washington himself warned of the dangers of a 2 party system…
He warned about parties themselves.
Fair distinction.
Some people say… Dems are generally shit but they have definitely moved left over the last decade. A lot of new people have run and while it isn’t a sure thing by any stretch, people have been able to and have the chance to continue to move the party and also just straight up infiltrate it to push it left. Whereas the repubs have been in full sprint to the right.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
Not everything is some conspiracy to keep you down. The people who wrote the constitution just weren’t perfect and had to make political compromises, which resulted in an imperfect system.
Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.
The dynamic was understood, it just wasn’t formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren’t in use though, and probably wouldn’t even have been practical without automation.
The system itself needs to change.
Pretend you’re a politician. You have two groups of people that want opposite things. One of them is reliable, donates and volunteers to help your campaign. The other is feckless and seems to always find an excuse to oppose you. Which would you try to please?
What exact issue do you disagree with from the feckless ones? What made it so hard?
You’re not doing a very good job of pretending to be a politician if that’s your answer.
so you can’t point a single instance. got it. sounds like your hypothetical politician was an asshole not worthy of the job.
Are you American?
Young people don’t get involved in the system and don’t vote, nothing special about the US on that level, so it’s not surprising their priorities aren’t the priorities of the political options.
If you want to engage those bad faith accounts, don’t respond to the Gaza thing; that’s a trap. Instead, ask about other issues like climate issues, housing issues, food insecurity problems, etc. ask them what their third party candidate has planned for that and ask for evidence of these plans. They’ll move goalposts and attempt to get back on Gaza. Keep them coming back to those other issues that affect Americans daily. Many of those accounts are here to derail conversation. Derail them in turn and force the conversation back on track.
Or do what I do and downvote then block, then post the occasional reminder that most of those accounts are bad faith at best.
I know. I mean I’m not a huge fan of Harris’ Gaza stance. Honestly I’m not sure why it’s political at all to call what Israel is doing wrong. But come on, Trump will be 100 times worse. And that’s just on the Israel/Gaza thing. I’m not sure how you can look at these two and decide that Harris is wrong enough about the Gaza thing that you come to the conclusion that either a third party or Trump vote is warranted. Which makes me believe is not genuine and likely foreign agent spreading chaos and misinformation.
It’s because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can’t afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
Not only that, but AIPAC is a serious force that has demonstrated their willingness to aggressively smear every candidate who speaks out against Israel; they’ve already done this for a number of races.
Harris is basically trapped here. The best thing she can do is stay vague until after the election, when she might actually have the power to do something about it. No one on Palestine’s side has anything to gain from her losing votes over it.
Yeah this is basically my thoughts as well. Stuck between Iraq and a hard place (I had to do the Hot Shots joke here… too fitting).
But seriously, AIPAC has way too much power in American politics. And your comment about Palestine is spot on. She is walking a very thin line, but this is the nature of politics and nuance. That orange fucker has no clue about any of this.
This is the correct reason and the reason why the genocide will continue no matter who is elected.
Aipac has bought enough of american politicians that it has rendered votes worthless.
People should vote on matters other than this for with any outcome US sponsored genocide is inevitable.
It’s because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can’t afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
I hope you are right. But, without evidence (if there is any, please share it), this might be wishful thinking. You might just be a more moral person than Harris. I might be being extremely unfair, but it doesn’t seem impossible for an elected official to be willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in a country without American voters to gain power.
I think there have been some “leaked” info to reputable journalists how both Biden and Harris pretty much despise Bibi at this point. I think if you look at it in the aggregate in how they pushed for the ceasefire (as opposed to Trump speaking with Bibi to actively undermine it), in her comments after meeting with Bibi shortly after becoming the presumed nominee following Biden stepping down — there is a clear tonal change from, say, 6-months-ago even. So yeah, I think her hands are pretty well tied.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
I completely agree with that. I admit to being impatient for change now, because innocent people are dying now. It is sad that elections (and electorates) get in the way of such important moral principles.
And everyone conveniently forgets that Biden did try to stop aid to Israel earlier this year. Congress blocked it. Is he trying hard enough? No probably not (I don’t claim to be an expert in middle east geopolitics, it is possible that the situation is an even more thoroughly fucked Gordian knot than it appears), but he did try. And the alternative this November thinks what he is trying is “too tough” on Bibi.
Did he try? Biden could have cited the Leahy laws any time he wanted, and proclaimed that he beleived genocide was occurring. He did not do that. So I dont beleive he was trying. I think he was pretending.
Do you understand how that works? There are exceptions specifically carved out for Israel, which require Blinken to initiate that process.
Removed by mod
So you want to argue in bad faith.
It’s fine to debate the idea that Gaza should not be the most important issue this election, but if your plan is to troll people and do fallacious debate then you’re not helping anyone. If you want to sell out Palestinians for personal gain, just be honest about it.
Removed by mod
Here come the tankies to call Bernie Sanders BlueMAGA in 3…2…
Here come the
tankiesRussian trolls to call Bernie Sanders BlueMAGA in 3…2…Fixed that for you
One is a moral/political position and the other is just reskinned antisemitism from the 1900’s
Somehow ‘tankie’ now means not wanting to send tanks to commit a genocide
Way to get out in front of them by casting moral consistency as a bad thing though. Devastating.
Tankie means anyone promoting actions that would have a devastating impact on America as a whole (e.g. Trump returning to office).
Bernie is such a good guy. The Dems have done him dirty so many times, they are currently continuing to support many harmful policies but he understands what’s at stake and he puts all of that aside to do the best he can.
He doesn’t have to do this. He’s 83 years old and while his cognitive health is outstanding for his age, someone his age doesn’t need to be on this grind for us. He probably won’t stop until he’s forced to due to his health. I love the guy and it’s a shame we weren’t given the chance to see him take the presidency.
He is a leader.
I remember that old footage of him in Burlington in the 70’s, talking to random kids in the mall, asking them what was important to them–drug policy, free speech, good schools–and just talking to them about how they could make a difference. From the bully pulpit, he would have been transformative.
I like one of the comments on that video. Some people do a filibuster in Washington and they read from the phone book or read a recipe book, Bernie talks about the law at issue, straight policy for 8 and 1/2 hours, and it’s coherent.
Agree 100%, but he’s not a god. He can be wrong, same as everyone else. I think he played this wrong.
He’s always been a social imperialist and had the same murderous nazi foreign policy as the rest of the state. He was always a compromise for leftists.
Just look at how he acted during the recent coups/attempted coups in south america.
Its hard to be informed about that stuff without searching for it very very explicitely. Where do you get your news on the regular?
I was a Bernie-or-Bust-er in 2016 because I was confident Hilary was going to win with or without my vote. I deeply regret taking that stance and feel like I let down every woman who’s lost rights to their bodily autonomy, every family who was separated at the border, everybody whose life was lost or ruined due to the Trump administration’s incompetent response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and everybody else who has been harmed by the Trump administration.
Don’t be like me. It sucks having to vote for the lesser of two evils but that’s how our system works and not voting or voting third-party isn’t going to change that but it does run the risk of things getting a lot worse.
Can I ask what state you were voting from in 2016?
TX at the time. Generally regarded as solidly red. However, looking at the numbers in '16 and '20, I wouldn’t be surprised if everybody in the state who had either voted third-party or not at all because of the belief that their vote wouldn’t make a difference would have indeed been enough to potentially flip the state.
I’m hoping this will be the year we see Texas flip blue. That would be beautiful.
The fantasy world the zero-tolerance high-ground morality angels live in is as dangerous as the one MAGA lives in, and ironically has the same victims. They proudly polish their halos nice and shiny while they let the world burn.
Don’t support genocide, it’s as simple as that!
By the way: Voting isn’t actually support. The American system is not set up in a way where votes actually add to the power of the Presidential office. On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action, which could be genocide. This means YOU HAVE TO VOTE HARRIS IN ORDER TO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. The socialism angels are hypocrites.
there are two facts about this election
- there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
- both candidates have a bad stance on the genocide
so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?
my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have… which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
Harris might be responsive, and let’s be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it’s definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?
which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
i only voted for kamala because she’s a woman and even though she’s an awful candidate at least we can get it out of our collective system, show little girls they can be president, and the neoliberal status quo is probably still better than Trump
i’m not entirely sure on that because I think Kamala is more likely to lead us into a war with Russia… but Trump is more volatile in general I think
Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing. there’s been so many women throughout history that could have been judith pulgars, politically speaking, and ended up getting pushed into more subservient positions
that’s the main reason. i dont think that’s an awful reason
as for the russian war thing, i rather like living in a pre-nuclear-war society.
It just implies that looking at the candidates the biggest and most important difference you see is that one is a woman.
Like, it’s great that you did vote for that woman as she also happens to be in favour of women having rights, lgbtq+ people having rights, doesn’t want mass deportions, still wants there to be elections in the future and a painfully long list of stark differences like that. It’s just impressive that none of that mattered to you, or that you are unaware of it
i’m more cynical about her. it’s not that i don’t think gay rights and women rights aren’t important. they are. but to me, the primary issues i care about, in order of importance
a) probability of war
b) attitude towards immigrants
c) economic position
d) foreign policy in general
so for example I think Kamala is probably more likely to get us into war than Trump is. That gives points to Trump.
on the immigration front, I don’t have any illusions about where the national conversation is going. I was brought here to this country illegally as a small child. I grew up here illegal and it wasn’t until my early 20s that I managed to naturalize
so i’ve been embedded in immigrant communities, with a lot of illegals sprinkled in, and have been paying attention to immigration news for virtually all of life
i can only think of two politicians who have done something meaningful for illegals. Reagan and Obama. Reagan of course gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Obama enacted the DACA policy, which wasn’t nearly as broad as amnesty, but it was definitely a good thing that helped hundreds of thousands of people. but “immigration reform” has been promised my whole life by DNC and never delivered. best was the half-assed DACA
But let’s look at rhetoric from Biden. During campaign in 2020 he advocated for a “compassionate approach” and was “pushing for immigration reform”. he promised to halt the construction of “the Wall tm”
What about the last couple years? He expanded construction of the wall which he timed with a photoshoot with Customs and Border Patrol at the southern border. He also went on TV and started using the word illegal - which is a term Democrats historically haven’t used. I don’t think it’s offensive or anything- but it’s telling to show how the overton window has sharply been shoved to the right
Now look at Biden’s successor - Kamala - the woman I voted for begrudgingly. go to her website and look at the policies and you will see zilch about compassionate approach or immigration reform. today it’s “security and strong border”
right now over 65% of all Americans (not just GOP) support deporting all illegal immigrants. Something absurd to say even a decade ago. Majority of Americans support a policy which would effectively have the military going around house to house in order to put over 10 million people in camps, which they would stay at for years while the government tries to figure out the complex and expensive logistical challenge of moving millions of people out of the country (Germans had this same problem back in first half of the 1900s. they came up with a controversial solution to that question, of course)
so i’m not saying kamala is equal or worse than trump on this. trump is partly at fault for the rise in this change. but i think long term it won’t make a difference who wins in this field. either way immigrants are screwed, so it doesn’t really matter to me in this election
economic position, i think not gonna matter much. the whole “tax breaks for first time homeowners” from Kamala is yet another bailout to the banks at the expense of regular people. Trump put in sanctions on China, raising prices for Americans… Biden kept them in place and put some more. I don’t think this is much different. the reductionist “tax the rich” is a nice slogan but without meaning. as long as the government has a money tap funneling public money to leeches, no amount of taxes will ever filter down to help the working class
foreign policy in general. again, i don’t see much of a difference. china from above is a good example. iran is another. Obama actually came up with a revolutionary deal- bringing the Iranians back into the fold. Trump torpedoed that deal in spectacular fashion and then moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. Biden maintained the “get fucked” attitude towards Iran and went to Tel Aviv in Oct of last year to bend the knee to Netanyahu.
so to summarize
for the issues i mentioned, which are the ones that matter to me, i think long term the choice of candidate isn’t going to influence anything significantly either way. the zietgiest is headed in a certain direction and i don’t think either candidate has the capacity or willingness to meaningfully change the course of things
so then we get to why did i vote for kamala. because I think it’ll be inspiring to girls and women across the country. it’ll implicitly let them know they are equal and are able to accomplish anything, even the highest office in the country
i think that alone is worth voting for her. and of course Trump is a bit of a wild card and I prefer stability.
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing.
I agree with that, and its long overdue, but if she fumbles badly she may set everything backward.
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
This level of cynicism is unwarranted. Sure it might be low, but for Harris it’s at least 0.1%.
with the current stranglehold the pro-Israeli lobby has on American politics (includes both GOP and DNC) even 0.1% is a stretch
AIPAC even brags about it: https://aipacorg.app.box.com/s/t8vvqt7evxvgkzn5jktpwejate6oxo0y
98% of AIPAC endorsed candidates won their election in 2022. if you are a politician and you say something mildly critical of Israel they will go to war with you and do everything so that your opponent wins
Israel has figured out how to hack American democracy. There is no going back at this point. We are a pro-Israel country for the foreseeable future, regardless of which candidate wins this election or the next one or the next one
"Vote for the candidate who will continue to fund a genocide to show you dont support genocide "
Man yall will do anything to avoid a socialist movement.
I see what you’re trying to do drag but it just doesn’t track.
What they think their vote contributes to:
Voting isn’t actually support
On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action
Interesting. So, by drag’s logic, a Trump voter isn’t responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.
It’s amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y’all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.
I’m not sure why people haven’t been saying this more.
I have been. It tends to get downvoted by both extremes on Lemmy.
On my instance, the UI doesn’t even give a downvote option. There’s probably a way around that, though, not that I am interested.
Getting rid of downvotes is, I think, a good thing.
Removed by mod
It’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position. The people of Gaza matter, and we can be pretty sure that Harris will continue current Biden Admin policies on it. You can’t argue for the hundred other policies at stake without knowingly allowing genocide to happen with US approval.
But here’s the thing: there are two very prominent Jewish people who don’t believe for a second that both sides are the same. One of them is Bernie Sanders. The other is Benjamin Netanyahu.
It’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position. The people of Gaza matter
Thank you for saying this.
If I were American, I would surely vote for Harris. But I would want to have been able to do more to keep people safe from state terrorism.
Removed by mod
I’ve been foolishly arguing with people for months on this topic.
We have been, everywhere we can.
That’s a bad headline. Watch his video, he makes a much more nuanced argument.
Hey look, someone finally posted an article about this so the mods don’t remove it!
Here’s the link to the actual speech from Sanders: https://youtu.be/Vf5MThSniiY
I came to the Politics community 9 hours after it was posted to find discussion. Nothing.
Personally I feel an exception should be made when the news is literally just a video, why wait for a journalist to regurgitate it in written form?
Anyway
Not voting for a candidate is not the only, nor the most effective way to push a party to change positions on an issue you care about.
It’s a great way to get nothing you want.
People should vote how they want, but should continue to push to replace First past the post voting in their state so people can vote how they want and still count their vote against the republicans.
Electoral reform is such a no brainer, it’s a shame the democratic party puts it’s desire for easy wins over the security and stability of the nation.
Removed by mod
Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron. Trump may be even more pro Israel…
Ah yes he will give them unlimited weapons and money to bomb children. Oh wait
We know that Harris will let the zionists do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, no matter what it costs the US. Your saying theres much difference between that and whatever Trump plans is dumb. Is Trump going to double kill people and double steal their land?
Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron
I think war crimes surrogates are worse than morons.
You really think there’s a complete carte blanche from either the current administration or will likely be under Harris? Don’t get me wrong. Israel has gone way overboard, but me assure you it could be a lot worse.
Infact, the actions of Trump during his administration included moving the US embassy in an extremely controversial move and even the war criminal Netanyahu meets Trump personally - when he is not even President.
Are you saying that taking action like not voting for Harris, which will help enable a Trump victory, is the correct course of action to reduce Palestinian and Lebanese suffering? Your approach doesn’t make any sense if your goal is to reduce suffering.
Gaza is hardly even an issue on the ballot, you’re picking between slow genocide and fast genocide.
Slow genocide is better though. We all get that right?
Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.
99 more years at the current rate.
Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.
The time to do something about it is during an election. Politicians couldnt care less what you think after they have your vote. They dont need your money.
If there was a part of the election to do something about it that time was the Primaries. The primaries that only like 30M people vote in every election. Right now your choices are between death and more death but also closer to home.
Harris could still change her mind at the last minute.
So you’re going to get Harris to change her stance by making sure she doesn’t become president? And because it was also stated that elections are the time to change them, you also imply she cannot change her mind after election?
Thats some ass logic right there.
Well she can change her stance on the weapons shipments any time she wants. She keeps losing support every day in the polls, so I suggest she stop digging and try something else. Or she is going to lose. Theres a lot of progressives who will vote for her if she stops the shipments and wont vote for her if she stays the course. This is her choice.
You want to talk to someone about ass logic, talk to her.
Slow genocide is better
Frankly no. Oppression like this is worse than slaughter. There’s a reason Gazans are telling reporters and social media they are relieved when their loved ones die, because they’re literally starving and in pain and squalor.
Which one should you prefer slowly genocide by starvation, diseases.
Or
Fast genocide by increased bombing and worse weapons.
I don’t think this is a choice anyone would want to choose from.
Then we agree that Gaza isnt a partisan choice, but to answer your rhetorical I would choose slow simply because there will always be an avenue for justice as long as some of Palestine remains.
Gaza is not on ballot I agree. But trying to convince people who don’t wish to participate in a genocide by telling them that their concerns don’t matter is wrong.
Israel has declared if not by words surely by actions that they won’t stop as long as Palestine remains.
If it matters to you then you should be making intelligent choices to reduce harm to an absolute minimum instead of getting angry and stupid enough to supporting NeoHitler, either directly or indirectly.
How different would he be from all the dictators and despots US has propped up elsewhere in the world. World will still turn, sun will still rise. All dictators die, all dictatorship ends. This is not end of the world.
Oh yeah I mean by that logic you might as well also put a cactus in your ass. Why? No need to ask questions, after all, the world will still turn. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Anally insert a cactus right away.
Sure when that strikes my fancy, for now I will pass.
Unfortunately Gaza is a non issue. The situation would only be handled worse under the other candidate. Along with just about every other conceivable thing.
