• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    there are two facts about this election

    1. there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
    2. 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?

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      15 days ago

      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

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        15 days ago

        Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          15 days ago

          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.

          • lurklurk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            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

            • kava@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              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.

              • lurklurk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                14 days ago

                To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war. Trump pretty much plans to roll over and give people like Putin whatever they want.

                So you have a bit of a point there, but again in the worst way

                How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps

                Thanks for explaining your reasoning, and lucky that the woman wasn’t the fascist this time like in France or Italy

                • kava@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps

                  i guess i didn’t communicate my message well enough. it’s not that they are equal. it’s that I think they are both equally impotent to stop the march of the zeitgeist.

                  if you fast forward 10 or 15 years, i don’t think it’ll matter which president wins next week- in terms of immigration. people are inevitably going into camps, no matter what, at this point in time.

                  One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps

                  remember that Biden continued using Trump’s illegal loopholes to refuse asylum to people at the border, breaking both US and international law, while also still separating kids: https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2024/07/29/report-reveals-migrant-family-separations-continue-under-biden

                  it’s done “bureaucratically” instead of “cruelly” but I dare you to try and explain the difference to a scared 6 year old

                  i hate trump because of his racist comments. but i hate biden and kamala too. at least trump doesn’t pretend to care- would you prefer someone abusing you to be honest about it or gaslight you? is it really a meaningful choice?

                  To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war

                  this is frankly a reductionist take. the situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. if anything, Biden’s approach of milquetoast risk-aversion is probably closer to Chamberlain than a hypothetical Trump presidency would be

                  consider why the US doesn’t allow Ukraine to use American weapons in Russia. consider why US aid is limited to just enough to keep Ukraine alive. consider why the US has been openly pumping untold millions into Ukraine under the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy since the early 90s (and almost certainly many millions covertly, too)

                  this is a proxy war for control of Ukraine. if you were to make an analogy to WW2 it would be more Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland

                  • lurklurk@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    13 days ago

                    I don’t think we’ll agree on immigration. In my eyes the proven track reckord of Trump should be ebought to make it obvious, but you don’t agree and I doubt I can say anything that would be more convincing than the pervious Trump administration

                    this is frankly a reductionist take. the situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. if anything, Biden’s approach of milquetoast risk-aversion is probably closer to Chamberlain than a hypothetical Trump presidency would be

                    Have you looked into what Trump is proposing on Ukraine? He does keep it vague, perhaps to allow people to imagine freely like you do here, but he keeps talking about negotiating a peace, which in itself is a stark difference from say Biden who seems to think that such things are up to Ukraine, being a sovereign nation and all.

                    Here’s a more concrete proposal on the Trump side: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-reviews-plan-halt-us-military-aid-ukraine-unless-it-negotiates-peace-with-2024-06-25/

                    Of course you can imagine any policy you want, as trump isn’t being clear, but the fact that he refuses to be clear on this should be a signal in itself. Another signal should be that Nato leadership and Europe are making moves to insulate the support of Ukraine against a Trump win. A third signal should be how desperately Russia seems to want Trump to win.

                    consider why the US doesn’t allow Ukraine to use American weapons in Russia. consider why US aid is limited to just enough to keep Ukraine alive. consider why the US has been openly pumping untold millions into Ukraine under the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy since the early 90s (and almost certainly many millions covertly, too)

                    I don’t understand your point here. Are you implying that Russia was justified in invading Ukraine because they were getting economic support from the US? Poland was too after the fall of the soviet union, so I guess they’re next?

                    this is a proxy war for control of Ukraine. if you were to make an analogy to WW2 it would be more Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland

                    The war in Ukraine is not a civil war. It is a sovereign european nation being invaded by russia to expand their territory, much like poland during ww2.

          • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            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.

      • forrcaho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        15 days ago

        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%.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          15 days ago

          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