cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396125
Stephen Starr in Hamtramck, Michigan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 11.00 EDT
Hamtramck is run by a bigoted shit stain mayor. As welcoming as I want to be to immigrants, don’t bring that sexist, homophobic shit into my neighborhood. Go ahead and vote against Harris, but don’t come complaining when Trump deports your family.
Interesting, this was exactly my mindset on voting at age 10 or so. Guess some people never gets out of that phase?
This is the kind of meme that talks past you, degrades you, and then will complain when not responded to.
The meme is not abusive but it does describe a cruel and illogical behavior rife in this thread.
A behavior in support of genocide, no less.
She had so many chances to make this election easier. Could have had a Palestinian talk during the DNC, and that would have likely changed this story.
Yeah, earlier in her campaign, I was optimistic that she was just trying not to undermine Biden’s foreign policy, and that she would eventually take an at least slightly more critical position on Israel. So far, though, she’s seems entirely committed to Israel’s escalating violence, and she won’t even make the smallest gesture towards the Palestinian community. I didn’t expect her to denounce Israel, but staying lock-step with Biden on this is looking like political suicide.
You’d have to be an idiot to make another countries conflict an election issue, when neither candidate supports your side. The fact that neither candidate is pro Palestine, it’s a moot point in terms of the election
So, a conflict where USA supply weapons and all other manners of support used for open genocide (btw illegally, US law declare US need to stop in such case, but Blinken and co blocked it) and is even sending US soldiers to serve as a missile bait, isn’t an issue for US voters according to you?
Nice democracy you think they should have there.
You’d have to be an idiot to make another countries conflict an election issue
apply this to Ukraine :)
Removed by mod
Now I’ve lost track of who, or what country, we’re even talking about.
they think im Russian
Biden and Harris went to the right of the right wingers on immigration to defang the repubs, and they threw the election on their own to defang russian election interference agents. Checkmate Russia, you lose again.
Thats not really a problem. The people you are talking to are only talking to themselves in a mirror anyway.
deleted by creator
Is this a joke? This genocide is as much our “conflict” as it is Israel’s, given that Israel wouldn’t be able to do what it’s doing without massive US financial, materiel, and political support. It’s absolutely an election issue. You can say it’s not ’till the cows come home, but uncommitted is as real as death & taxes.
Guess I’m an idiot then. 🤷 I think I can live with that label. its unfortunate harris couldn’t find her moral spine when it mattered but here we are.
Angry with the Biden administration – and, by extension, Kamala Harris – for its support for Israel, Arab Americans may be willing to overlook Trump’s history of closeness with Israel’s hard-right leaders.
So, these individuals could be described as the common clay of the new West?
yeah man, denigrate them more, that’ll surely get them on your side! maybe a touch more smug condescension? anything except engaging with their concerns, of course.
I call conservatives dumb too.
These people aren’t special. Just a different kind of dumb.
Similar in the way they vote against their own interests.
personally, I think ignoring the concerns of voters in a historically very important swing state months before the election is a recipe for a disastrous rerun of 2016, and should be avoided if you’re actually concerned with winning, protecting democracy, etc. but I guess we’ll see if the strategy of “fuck you, vote for me” works out this time 🤷
I don’t want them on my side. I’m not running for office, and they’re shitty, stupid people.
(your mask is slipping)
Trump supporters? Yeah, I stand by it.
these folks are doing logical loop de loops
You see no difference between people put off by settler-colonial genocide and… settler colonists? What?
Removed by mod
I don’t know what you’re referring to.
Removed by mod
You sure they’re feigning?
Removed by mod
I’m not feigning. I don’t know what point you were making. Perhaps you could expound using more descriptive terms?
It seems that you are currently so agitated that my honest statement of not knowing what you mean must actually be a sneaky bad faith strategem.
Removed by mod
Oh, so is it amnesia then? Because you seemed pretty clear on the topic of discussion until I cornered you. Then, magically - or just conveniently - you have forgotten what we’re talking about.
Feel free to rephrase and expound on what you said. I do not see how it applied to what we were talking about, and therefore don’t see its meaning.
And pretending to be psychic and read my mind (or, perhaps, hallucinating) via the internet doesn’t make you right. How is that even rational?
As I said, I recognize behaviors and clichés. And you have not yet contradicted a single prediction and have accidentally confirmed a few.
Why should anyone believe what you say when it’s clearly either a bad-faith argument full of disinformation or evidence of your ignorance and inability to comment intelligently on this topic?
I have made no bad faith arguments nor presented any disinformation. Please do your best to not make things up and to address what I have actually said.
And, of course, you should be against genocide and act accordingly.
It’s a movie reference. You should watch Blazing Saddles, it’s very funny.
It’s a great movie, I always tell people to watch it!
In the movie, this is a reference to the racist townspeople in the “Western”. It’s poking fun at the Westerns that romanticized allegedly good and pure settlers (colonizers) and to sympathoze with them. You weren’t supposed to think of them as, in Wilder’s terms, “morons”.
Parent was just trying to call people morons. It’s not a clever reference, I got it. But those people are, specifically, Muslims so put off by the genocide of Palestinians that they’d vote against the administration supporting that grmocide. I would say their political acumen is more developed than the genocidal sheepdogging that we see in this thread, people that can’t even say the word genocide trying to imply they’re the adults in the room. At least they can understand basic leverage and independent action.
But I was making note that the “morons” reference in Blazing Saddles is about settler-colonists whereas the people parent wanted to call morons are literally people that are reacting against settler colonists and their supporters. I think that is an oversight that can only be made through chauvinism, personally. The person wants to feel better than those moved by genocide, they want it to be as narrow as “those people are stupid”. They can’t contend with the content.
Removed by mod
Yes I know the reference, parent is just calling them stupid really. Though I appreciate you taking the time to explain it and write it up! I wrote a comment to this effect but explaining what I am saying in regards to it here.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it, especially if you have ever seen a garbage chauvinist pop Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it,
Correct.
Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
There’s a movie I would suggest watching called In Harm’s Way. Admittedly it’s a WWII movie and not a Western, but it’s…without wishing to spoil let’s just say it’s the most nuanced John Wayne film I’m aware of.
Thanks for the movie rec! I added it to my queue. There is a lot of overlap between WWII movies at the time and Westerns so if nothing else I will enjoy making comparisons. If you could sum up your takeaway in one sentiment, what would it be?
In Harm’s Way: Not all war heroes deserve medals.
Thanks!
Okay, but, abandon her for whom exactly? Just not vote? Vote 3rd party? I am not going to say Harris is perfect, but this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Third Party, tyically, that’s what most anti-genocide groups are advocating for.
What third party? David Duke just endorsed Jill Stein.
Any anti-genocide candidate, Claudia De La Crúz is best but Jill Stein is often pushed as an alternative.
It’s important to note that Duke said he supports Stein because Stein is against funding Israel, and David Duke hates Jewish people, he doesn’t care about genocide. He supported Trump in 2016 and 2020 but said Trump is too supportive of Israel for 2024.
You mean the same Jill Stein that was endorsed by former KKK leader, seems like a solid choice…
You were just so excited to use this talking point that you couldn’t be bothered to note that he was responding to it in the very comment you used it on.
Removed by mod
You formulated it as though you were bringing up something new: “you mean the same X who Y” is for introducing something new into the conversation in relation to X, with X here being Jill Stein. If you had just used David Duke as X and “who lead the KKK” as Y, it wouldn’t have been an absurd contribution.
Though it would still be a silly one, since people know who David Duke is, it’s not some obscure fact. He’s the single most recognizable name in connection with the KKK, perhaps along with the long-dead D.W. Griffith (but probably not).
Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala.
Neither of these facts alone necessarily implicate the candidates. You really have to consider the context. Being endorsed by someone hardly means you keep their company.
Removed by mod
I understand, you asked me who the anti-genocide groups were supporting, not a vetted list of everyone who has come out in favor of each third party.
Didn’t ask you anything actually lol.
Edit: This comment I will forever save to show the group think and mindless nature of lemmy politics. I simple called out that I didn’t ask anything and I’m being downvoted for stating that fact and nothing else. Goes to show you, facts don’t matter to these people.
Ah, you were a different user jumping in, my bad. Either way, that’s what was asked originally.
My personal opinion? Claudia De La Crúz all the way.
It’s important to note that Duke endorse Stein because she supports ending support for Israel, and Duke hates Jewish people, he doesn’t care about genocide at all.
Its like lemmy world is just democrat bots that respond with these canned attack responses any time Jill stein is mentioned
I wanna try, I wanna try
^^^Jill ^^^Stein
I’m not a Jill Stein voter, but I dont think she can control who endorses her so it doesnt make a lot of sense holding that particular thing against her.
Shut the fuck up with this
Is there a top down order of bad-faith Democrat talking points distributed every day?
Nope just people out here trying to keep conversations in the realm of reality.
David Duke supports Jill Stein for one single reason: because Jill Stein does not support Israel and Trump does.
Duke even reluctantly endorsed Stein because she is Jewish.
And Stein called him trash and disavowed him.
If you call Jill Stein a white nationalist because of Duke you call every single person who does not support Israel a white nationalist
It is nice to hear she disavowed him. But no it’s not like his attempt to associate with her makes her racist too. It’s just a reminder that she has less chance of winning this election than you do. And citing morals to vote for the party that has transparently turned itself into nothing more than a spoiler is just ridiculous. It’s like rooting for the outfield fans in the home run zone in baseball. (If they lean over and catch it, it’s a home run.)
Funny enough, that’s exactly who they’re planning on voting for, too! The way they put it, voting for Stein is their way of not voting for Trump but ensuring he beats Harris.
Many of the candidates from alternative parties are anti-genocide.
The article says Trump directly. Read the interviews and about his new campaign office in hamtramck.
No, it’s cutting off a cancerous growth yourself because you can’t afford healthcare. You might die to metastasis, you might die to blood loss, but if you leave the growth alone it will kill you.
And yes most are planning on voting third party.
I guess that just doesn’t make sense to me in the current political landscape. We know the third party isn’t going to get the votes, and we also know that Trump is not only not going to save Gaza, he’s going to do everything in his power to make this country worse as well. Currently, voting third party is throwing your vote away. I’m not saying I’m in love with the system or that it isn’t fucked, but we have two options this election. Neither of them is going to save Gaza, but I don’t see why damming the whole country, as well as yourself, to a worse existence, is the more sane option.
Trump’s plan for Gaza and peace in the Middle East to let Israel kill absolutely everyone that they want to.
Anyone who thinks Trump would produce a better outcome for the people of Gaza is not thinking clearly.
In the current political system, voting for a third party in earnest or in protest (for national offices) is a blatant waste of your vote
By all means, vote in third party candidates in local, county and even state elections. Vote to eliminate the electoral college. VOTE for Ranked-Choice/Instant Runoff voting.
These are the ways to break the two party deadlock.
Jill Stein has co-opted the Green Party, and turned it into a blatant pro-trump shill organization, on behalf of Russia/Putin.
Greens once ran good candidates across the country who won a fair number of local races and took office in places where they could have a good positive effect. No more. Sadly that party has been swindled and hoodwinked by a putinist grifter.
Israel is not being held back in any way by the democrats now. How could trump make it worse? Send them napalm? Fucking think about it for a second man. Do you know what’s happening over there currently? What would worse look like to you?
The right already has everything they need for “damning the whole country” with or without Trump - Roe V. Wade being overturned, all this trans panic bullshit, immigration suddenly being everyone’s uncle’s top issue, utter climate inaction, etc. - it’s all happening under Biden’s administration. What makes you think the Democrats are suddenly going to turn heel and do something about it? If they had any interest in doing anything about it, why wouldn’t they be running on that? If we can’t move them on the highest crime against humanity - genocide - by threatening their power in choosing not to support their campaign, what makes you think you’ll be able to move them on anything else by protesting in ways that they can easily ignore and let their opposition stamp down with police response and media circus, just as long as you come back to vote for them in 4 years?
What makes you think your protests won’t just end up like BLM, with the media smearing you and cops descending upon you with military vehicles, riot shields, and rubber bullets as soon as the protests become disruptive; as democrats stand by and grand stand out of one side of their mouth while out of the other they are refusing to defend you and going so far in the opposite direction of answering your demands that they put the very kind of person you’re protesting against - a cop in this case - up for the highest offices in the land?
Neither of them is going to save gaza, and neither of them is going to save us either. One of them is just more annoying than the other and I personally am going to need a much more compelling reason to vote Democrat than that. By voting third party I am showing them that I am engaged in politics and my vote is on the table but only if they come and meet me where I am, as I have hit a wall in what I’m willing to support. They will either get the message and adopt more popular policy - realizing that the right will never trade Republicans for Republicans-lite and they need the left to win - or they will keep disengaging their base from their party and have a much harder time winning elections. That’s their choice to make, not ours.
One side is way more than just “more annoying.” You’re throwing away your vote, period. We cannot be single issue voters, because there isn’t only a single issue at stake. The right will vote against their own self interests every time it the right says they hate the right people.These elections are how they get their players in place. This is how we got here. The players the right have placed in courthouses, congress, the senate, and the supreme court are there reasons we lost Roe v Wade in the first fucking place.
I’m not going to sit here and think that the dems are going to fix every single problem, but I know for a fact Trump would make it worse. People pulled this same shit last election, and the one before. Thinking that, “Oh, well, they’ll see that I’m not gonna vote and then they’ll change.” Magats will vote against their own self interest because they’re damn near a cult. We vote against our own self interests to, what, prove ourselves a point? Teach our politicians a lesson? Make it harder for the Bernies and AOCs to have even a ice cubes chance of hell of even discussing change? For some reason, we can’t see the forest through the trees. It’s so frustrating. People like you want to make it seem like a vote for Harris is a vote for genocide knowing damn well is the only sane option we have. Because you mean to tell me you really fucking think the Republicans are going to handle Gaza with care? Or that they’ll be just a little worse to work with? You genuinely believe that?
So tell me, at the end of this “protest,” what’s the plan? We absolutely know that the third party is going to lose, so it’s either Trump or Harris who have any reasonable odds of winning. So Harris loses, are you happy in this situation? The Republicans will actively block anything to help anyone, but I guess no one getting help is better than anyone getting help in your world. I’m not happy with my choices, but I’m a fucking adult, and adults have to make tough decisions. Adults have to weigh the options. Adults have to look ahead. I know right now I have no feasible candidate to vote for that can assist with Gaza right now, but I know one of those candidates is not going to go on live television and stir a race war by claiming Haitian immigrants are eating fucking cats and dogs. I know one of those candidates doesn’t believe that there are active abortions going on at nine months. I know one of those candidates isn’t going to continue to restrict the rights of citizens in their own country that they don’t like. I know one candidate isn’t going too be too busy sucking Putin’s dick for money and compliments to govern.
Right now, let’s say you and your family are poisoned (not because of what you believe, but go with me here). We give you two cups. One will not only do nothing for you, it will actually make your condition worse and much more painful. Another one may help you, it could even have the antidote, but all you know is that it will not make your condition worse and will at the very least slow the spread, giving you time to think of a plan should it fail. Whatever you pick, your family has to pick too. Your choice in this scenario is to stare at both cups, willing one to change into the antidote with inaction while you continue to succumb to poison. Your family pleades to at least not make their deaths worse, to at least take the possible antidote, or at least give them time, but you’re like, “no, no, no, I think these cups are starting to get that I’m not easily swayed!”
I am sorry that we’re in this situation, but we are. Voting for third party is throwing away your vote. If that’s what you wanna do, I can only hope that the rest of us have more sense to make up for it.
Just curious, but is there a red line the US could cross for you to abandon it? A red line where the Dems and Reps are beyond salvaging, and you would work outside the electoral system to enact change?
In this current landscape, no. Come November, this is it. These are the choices we have. I have to look at everything and find the lesser of two evils. It sucks, but it’s where we are. No, I am not at all pleased with what Harris has had to say about Gaza, but it’s not as if I have another, reasonable option to vote for in the next three weeks. So who do I think it going to be “better” for the next four years while we try again. Neither of them is likely to passify me when it comes to Gaza, but one of them believes in trans rights. Unfortunately, that is better than nothing.
One month before the election is not time to stand on business, the players are set. Now next year, and the next following years until we end up at the next election, absolutely. I have no problem making my voice heard and attempting change when it could actually do something. It’s like, when they tell you to put your own mask on before helping someone else in a plane. Both Gaza and America need “air.” We can even say that, while America is “light headed,” Gaza has already lost consciousness. As much as I wish I could kill two bird with one stone and pick the better candidate and the one against genocide, I can’t, there’s no a “joint mask” that’s fallen for me to pick. But if I put on my mask first, take a deep breath, I’ll get time to try again, maybe even save someone. If I don’t take that mask, no one is getting help and I’ll just pass out too.
I have to do what I can in this moment, and right now that’s trying to put the more sane of the two candidates in office.
So who do I think it going to be “better” for the next four years while we try again.
You aren’t going to try again, like all liberals you’re going to sit on your hands for 4 years and contest Leftists for trying to push for actual change. That’s the problem, liberals can only say they are unhappy with the status quo but work their hardest to perpetuate it.
If I don’t take that mask, no one is getting help and I’ll just pass out too.
All you’re doing is putting on a mask with a hole in it.
Really, all you’re saying is that you would vote for Hitler if 101% Hitler was his opponent and shame voters for voting for a leftist instead.
All of that text and you didn’t address a single thing that I said.
You don’t need to explain your line of thinking to me. I’ve been beaten over the head with it. I used to have the same line of thinking. It does not hold up to reasoned criticism and it simply is not possible to defend at this moment without minimizing genocide. Try it. Try having this conversation with someone that is watching their loved ones be murdered indiscriminately by our tax dollars. Go tell them how your chosen social issue is more important than Palestinian lives, that it justifies supporting with your vote and tax dollars a country that is bombing and starving living human beings, who are mostly children, and see if you feel so righteous at the end of it.
The Democrats do not care about any of your issues. They care about winning, and they care about fundraising. When their fundraising is actively threatened by your issues, the only way to get them to move on anything is to threaten their ability to win elections. Look: Biden just fucking did it, a legitimate threat to cut off aid (still only a threat but it’s a start), and I guarantee you it would not have happened if this election was smooth sailing for Kamala. No thanks to you and all of you screeching about the end of the world if Trump wins.
Both of your cups are poisoned, so call their bluff. Refuse to drink the poison and demand an option without poison. The cups did not just materialize there as immutable objects, they were put there by politicians that need us more than we need them and have the power to change what goes in the cup. Do not for a second let them deceive you into thinking otherwise.
If they see they cannot win without you, they will move mountains to come meet you. Lesser evil voting does not allow for that exchange to happen. In fact it actively undermines it. That is how we got here, that is how we keep ratcheting to the right. Not any of your bullshit about unelected judges.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Just curious, which third party would you vote for ?
Not Jill Stein, if that’s what you’re asking. Looking like Cornel West but I haven’t fully reviewed my options. Might also write someone in. It’s less about the particular candidate and more about the message I’m sending.
Yeah that’s what I was wondering. Not really following us politics apart from the constant bombardment of it on Lemmy, so I’m also curious about what other candidates exist.
Ah gotcha. Didn’t know any better and assumed you were JAQing off trying to make a point.
I also find Claudia De La Cruz compelling but she would be a write-in candidate in my state as she’s not on the ballot here.
Hey, if you’re that curious, here’s an idea. Throw some darts at a map and drop the addresses into onyourballot.vote411.org. It’ll spit out a list of all the local and federal races and what candidates are on the ballot for them in that particular district.
“uncommitted” may be the message you’re looking for.
It’s a basic philosophical question.
Say you find yourself locked in a room with a gun, and two people tied to a chair. A voice announces that if you kill one of them, you and the other go free, if you don’t kill anyone or if you kill yourself, everyone dies.
Your solution to this, voting Harris, is trust the voice is telling the truth and figure out who is the worse person so you don’t feel as bad about being a murderer.
Their solution is not being a murderer.
Maybe the voice is telling the truth, and thus the voice will be a murderer, but they won’t be – you would be though with your choice. Maybe the voice is lying, in which case they made the right choice and you objectively made the wrong one, the worst one.
Most humans, ideally, would choose to not be murderers, even if that means a psychopath does a murder “because” you refused to.
In your example, their solution is absolutely being a murderer. They didn’t pull the trigger, but they condemned those people to death. They know that refusing is killing those people, that their refusal is the cause for those peoples deaths. I’m not saying that I don’t think Gaza is important, or that it’s not worth fighting for, but I extend that same importance to my countrymen as well. I think the woman who may need an abortion is important, even if I never get one. I think that my neighbor’s kids should have a save school, and not be laden I’m debt, even thought I don’t plan to have children.
I cannot stop what’s going on in Gaza. It’s a horrible, terribly bitter pill to swallow, but it is the truth. However, I’m not going to set everyone else on fire so we can all burn together in solidarity. Too many other people’s lives are at stake. And I’m not saying their lives are more important than those in Gaza, I’m saying they’re just as important. Kill one person, or kill everyone. I would rather save someone than no one.
Exactly, you think being a murderer is okay.
That is the core philosophical difference.
You are completely okay with killing innocent people. These people are not, normal people are not.
This difference cannot be reconciled. These people will never think the way you do, and thank every God ever imagined for that, as someone needs to be the moral party if only as an example of how normalized and justified pure evil is.
That’s not at all what I said, and I think you know that. Wanting to help someone is not the same as wanting to kill someone else. My vote doesn’t save Gaza, because there is unfortunately no option, but my vote could still help someone. Not voting, or throwing it away, literally doesn’t help anyone.
I hope you find peace with your indecision and your cowardice should the rest of the country not be able to make up for your inactivity. But I’m sure those suffering in Gaza will feel better knowing that someone in Texas is bleeding out in the parking lot. That’ll show 'em.
Have fun in international court.
Fucking ridiculous.
A vote for anyone OTHER than Harris directly results in MORE Gazan suffering.
Trump will not restrain Israel. On the contrary, he will encourage them to ‘end it’ and achieve “peace” by ACTUALLY genociding all remaining Palestine resistance.
restrain Israel
Are you really so deluded to beleive all of Bidens play acting about how he was seeking peace all this time? He used 0% of his levers to make peace happen and 100% of his levers to encourage Israels murder spree.
There already has been no restraint from Biden. Genocide is genocide, and Harris supports genocide.
I’m not voting for genocide, there is no moral argument to do so.
How are you not a murder in your role play here? By doing nothing everyone dies, that blood is ALSO on your hands for inaction.
Because it was a trick. You are being tricked by the voice that you are responsible for minimizing the harm they choose to inflict on the three people in the room, if that threat is even real in the first place.
So to choose to murder anyone or kill yourself is a ridiculous position and most wouldnt take it. The voice will have to be the murderer here if thats what they want.
Or you can believe the voice without question, and kill one of the people based on some arbitrary metric you come up with on the spot to justify you choosing to kill someone.
So in this case, people are believing the lie, then choosing “the lesser of two evils” based on some arbitrary metric like “which ones better for the economy, since they both are genocidal”.
I’m not the one murdering them, quite literally. Just like in real life, there is no mystical unstoppable force of nature in play. It’s another person, like you. Their choices aren’t your choices.
To put it another way, if you sold a kid a bike and he later crashes and dies despite the bike having no faults, are you responsible? Most would correctly identify that you are not responsible in that scenario, as the kid is responsible for what they did with the bike.
This is ridiculous. The most harm-reducing outcome for actual Gazans (not to mention everyone else) is if Harris wins.
Because, either Harris will win, or Trump will win.
There is NO other possibilty and no amount pseudo-philosophy word games will change that fact.
How is being genocided without restraint better than being genocided without restraint?
Ive yet to hear someone explain any details about how it could be worse under trump.
Vague references to restrictions in place is fun. I’m sure they were very disruptive. We’ve all been talking about how much the biden admin is holding netenyahu back right?
I’m not arguing trump was not going to be awful, I’m arguing both sides would have justified genocide and murder one way or another. Open your eyes.
Oh they’re really gonna love how Trump handles Arabs
It’s like the trolley problem, except instead of the other track having fewer people, it has more, and it just loops back around to run over the people on the first track anyway. We should have sent the trolley on a completely different route decades ago.
Strawmen belong in fields, not comment sections.
Also: does every ml user have an allergy to pragmatic problem solving?
“pragmatic” problem solving is killing all undocumented migrants to solve the housing and work shortages in the US.
Pragmatic problem solving was the excuse for the necessity of the Holocaust. Pragmatic problem solving is making black people count as two thirds a white person to appease fascists.
Pragmatic problem solving is a liberal appointing Hitler chancellor so commies don’t get power and Nazis stop doing violence.
Pragmatic problem solving is behind the worst human atrocities. Let’s not pretend it’s ever been good.
No average dem is fantasizing about Republicans hurting people. This is nonsense, pathetic, and textbook straw man, all your word salad doesn’t change this. We get it, you like Trump, stop with all the games.
E: Lol people really seem to think the average dem wants people to be hurt to the point where they fantasize about it. The same side fighting for health rights, trans rights, etc. While the other side is literally waving Nazi flags in the open. I get it, you want to vote third party. But the reality is 3rd party won’t win, you have an ability to impact the outcome and move the needle in the right direction but overly rigged morals will result in you not helping anyone at all when you could have.
“We get it, you like Trump, stop with all the games.”
Pot meets kettle. So I guess all of that talk about “strawmen” was just projection. Okay. I see what you did there.
Saying some BS like a group of people fantasizes about people getting hurt, yeah that sounds very on brand for Trump and people who follow him.
Also, assuming who someone is voting for is not a straw man lol, might wanna look up the term. And when someone says being pragmatic is bad, yeah, sounds like a Trump voter. Pragmatic literally means: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Look it up.
If you think that’s bad then you’re literally living in a fantasy world of theories and what ifs. Kinda like his tariffs idea or injecting bleach, or a million other stupid ideas he’s had.
I see you are now trying to construct a new straw man. You might want to look up the term “projection.” Go ahead, look it up.
Lightor at this point I dont even need to read your comments, I just read you name and autmatically skip to downvote.
I’m not voting for genocide. In fact I already voted against genocide.
The Dems nor Republicans have a candidate that is against genocide.
So you voted for someone you know won’t get elected. So you’re ok with the worse of the two between Dem and Rep? Because you had a chance to help prevent the worse of the two coming into office and didn’t. Choosing to cast a vote that won’t impact the outcome helps literally no one. The Gaza situation is not all that is happening in the world.
I’m not ever going to vote for a genocide, and there is no moral high ground if you do .
buddy, half of the comments on this post are libs fantasizing about mass deportations, and acting smug the whole time. they cannot wait to say “I told you so” when the camps get built. stop kidding yourself.
Lol half the comments? Really? I just scrolled and don’t see 1 in 2 comments being about fantasizing about mass deportation. Almost like you’re being just as hyperbolic as the comic is lol.
No average dem is fantasizing about Republicans hurting people
You were in this thread though, lmao.
Yah I was, and I’m not fantasizing about hurting anyone.
You absolutely were.
This is an article about why Arab-Americans are abandoning the Democrats for endorsing and materially supporting genocide, and the response is “Trump would be bad too!” Yea, of course he would be, Harris is so bad that she isn’t a solution either.
Also: does every ml user have an allergy to pragmatic problem solving?
What do you mean by this?
Yes, yes they do. Pretty sure it’s either a bot farm or dumb ass undergrads…
Ah yes, Leftists must be naive or bots, there’s no such thing as an intelligent leftist
Lol wait, this was already posted this thread? Is this just a bot account?
You think they’re voting for trump? If so, you’re even dumber than you think they are
I mean, it’s not like there’s any other viable candidate. I don’t like the two party system but it’s what we have and by voting any other way than Harris, it gives advantage to Trump.
Her shitty policies and attitude toward the genocide of people in the Levant is what’s giving trump an advantage!
Her shitty attitude towards people calling on her not to support the genocide is what’s giving trump an advantage.
She had it in the bag when she called him weird but you can always rely on a democrat to steal defeat from the jaws of victory!
And you know for sure that democrats are going to turn on minorities and leftists once she loses the election rather than face up to the fact that they did everything themselves to avoid winning it.
This is question-begging a number of critical elements, e.g. that the “rafts” cannot be influenced by “passenger” input, and that there is only this one, totalizing crossroad of literal, immediate survival.
We can do it too:
You’re in a runaway train accelerating toward a cliff and the break only really stops acceleration, it doesn’t decelerate. You can sit in the engine room and hold down the break, and you’ll live longer, but you aren’t changing the fundamental dynamic of the situation, which ends in your eventual death. Conversely, you can jump off the train, surely injuring yourself, possibly crippling yourself, maybe even killing yourself, but it’s the only potential way to change the dynamic of being doomed to fall off the cliff.
Does this prove anything? No, it’s just a model of how some people think of the problem, not an argument. It would be really obnoxious and disingenuous to present it as an argument.
Maybe we should see if there’s any point of agreement, one step at a time.
Do you agree that either the Dem or Rep nominee will be the next president?
When I said:
and that there is only this one, totalizing crossroad of literal, immediate survival.
This was me saying “It frames things as though losing the election means that all is lost and there won’t be future elections.”
As I’m pretty sure I explained to you an hour ago in another thread, I think it’s an acceptable loss for the Democrats to lose an election to put pressure on them to change or else to establish that they are more loyal to the US project of Israel than they are to trying to win elections or do what voters want or anything like that.
I don’t proactively want Trump to win, but I find it totally acceptable since what sets him apart from other Republicans is not that he is especially fascist in the substance of what he is likely to do. It might actually be possible to browbeat me if we had a Tom “throne of Chinese skulls” Cotton or someone as the nominee, he actually represents something that could be totalizing to me, but Trump is just kind of a deranged grifter and Vance is a more even-keel grifter.
So to save us both time, no, I don’t think we agree on any points. I wasn’t commenting toward that end, I merely wanted to say that the comic is unhelpful.
False dichotomy and incorrect question. It doesn’t matter who wins the next presidency. the general outcomes will be the same.
will both candidates break strikes when convenient to their corporate overlords? yes. will both candidates continue to drain our economy by not reforming health care/holding corporations accountable? yes. (as demonstrated by harris’ unwillingness to commit to keeping khan) will both candidates continue to support israel wholeheartedly? yes.
the only different is the speed of the decline. frankly I’m done emotionally suffering because the national democrats are shit people. you’re welcome to your positions and beliefs I just have no interest in supporting them when all they do is cause more harm to my communities. I also live in a blue bastion, harris’ will win here regardless of my actions and my local government will more or less prevent the worst of trumps nonsense for my community.
Do you agree that either the Dem or Rep nominee will be the next president?
Do you agree that theres no excuse possible for aiding in a far right wing genocide?
This except the raft has a bunch of holes in it, is covered in blood, and by setting foot in it you are implicitly giving your consent to fund a genocide on the other side of the world, and then the raft sinks anyways in the last panel.
edit: Bright side, the water may not actually be that deep. At least it’s certainly not as deep as the peoples’ whom you would have sacrificed by getting on the raft. That’s just what people tell you, but they also told you the raft would be perfectly seaworthy in its battered state.
A more accurate metaphor would be if the raft was uninflated and full of holes.
passenger 1 - “Oh crud. Our boat is sinking. We are in great peril indeed.”
captain - “We’re going to be okay everyone, just get into this liferaft.”
Pulls out liferaft with a huge fucking hole in it.
passenger 1 - “Is this the only liferaft we’ve got?”
captain - “Yes, but don’t worry about the hole, it won’t sink and we’ll be fine I promise.”
passenger 2 - “Hey guys, I have a liferaft over here that doesn’t have a hole in it.”
captain - “Guys, that’s not important right now. Our boat is sinking.”
passenger 1 - “Eh, I guess I’ll go in that one.”
passenger 3 - “Sure me too, captain says we should - wait where’s captain?”
Looks up, in the distance sees captain floating away on functional liferaft.
captain - “So long fuckers!”
Passengers board remaining liferaft, liferaft sinks, the passengers die.
Where you fucked up:
passenger 2 - “Hey guys, I have a liferaft over here that doesn’t have a hole in it.”
You can’t reach the other one with no holes.
One of 2 things is happening with this comment.
-
You actually don’t know how FPTP voting works.
-
You’re pretending to not know how FPTP voting works.
Captain represents capitalists falsely promising to fix our problems
Broken liferaft is the false promise (i.e. voting is going to fix our problems despite genocide, imperialism, deporting illegal immigrants, hurting homeless people, fracking, etc)
Fixed liferaft is what actually will save us (i.e. food, housing, healthcare, etc)
While everyone is hyperfocused on who to vote for, the capitalists take the rest of the food/housing/healthcare and everyone else dies.
-
I will note your liberal dem in this comic also didn’t get in the raft through their own inability to take the correct path regardless of the choices of others. which I think is pretty spot on for individuals like yourself.
I think that’s a statement about how other people’s shitty voting decisions affect everyone.
Believe me, if I could just choose the president (life raft) myself with no other input, I would.
na, it just demonstrates the yours/the artists inability to act independently from a group. what have you done to change the voting system? probably nothing. so take your nonsense elsewhere.
deleted by creator
single issue voters
the single issue is the eradication of their families and friends
yeah man I wonder why they don’t support that
If this is a joke, it’s a very bad one. If it isn’t, good luck on pulling your head out of your ass.
I mean their single issue is Harris supports murdering their friends and family via her Israel proxy. If you’re going to have a single issue to decide your vote I can’t think of a better one.
Personally Harris lost my vote for two main reasons:
- her continued support of genocide. while its true israel has a right to defend itself, it doesn’t have a right to support of the US while doing so. we have laws on the books for this precise reason and they need to be enforced.
- her unwillingness to commit to supporting labor. won’t commit to khan, will likely happily break a striking union whenever she can as evidenced by the train union and wouldn’t have ‘changed a thing’ comment.
There are a bunch of other things I could overlook but not those two. I jokingly sent my friend a message yesterday.
God it amazes me to watch a candidate who is part of a historically low approval admin go ‘im not wrong its the voters who are wrong’. repeatedly.
my friends response? ‘I can’t tell which candidate you’re talking about’ which was precisely my point.
Do you consider war crimes, mass murderand sending in our troops to assist in a far right wing colonial war – all done with our tax dollars to be a “single issue” like… school vouchers or Amtrak funding? It seems a very dishonest or at best an inaccurate method to weigh issues against each other.
The single issue: genocide
Why are you sheepdogging for genociders? You have always had the option of saying nothing and educating yourself instead.
deleted by creator
What is more important than supporting and normalizing genocide?
It’s like you’re mentally incapable of reading a comment and responding to the words in it.
I responded directly to what they said re: there being multiple issues they want to weigh. That was their response up me challenging complicity in genocide and asking why the person I was responding to was sheepdogging for genociders. They are trying yo be euphemistic and retreat to the thought-terminsting clichés that reinforce complicity in genocide, which also means avoiding even using the word. So I recontextualized their attempt to decontextualize while still directly addressing it.
Please feel free to tell me which specific parts you would like to see addressed or responded to. I certainly already replied to the first sentence, which was the main point of deflection.
Removed by mod
So, you admit to intentionally mischaracterizing what they said
No? Please do your best to engage with what I say rather than making things up.
deleted by creator
Preventing someone from gaining power who will continue genocide
There could not be a candidate this describes more than Harris. You know, from the Biden-Harris administration behind the genocide happening right now. The one supplying bombs to burn refugee children alive. Have you heard their screams?
I am told Democratic voters are empathetic and strategic. But all I see is racist normalization of genocide and toeing the party line.
find new targets for genocide
That’s a Dem specialty! They have a knack for stoking and supporting genocides. Heck, Obama got one started in Yemen. Even NGOs were saying a vhikd was killed every minute for years by this. Why do you think they are so resilient and steadfast against this genocide and Western attempts to free up Zionist shipping lanes? Did you even know what was done to Yemen?
and turn the country into a dictatorship?
Given that the current “system” has you shilling for genocide you should already question whether you live in a democracy.
Though all of this lesser evilism is also premised on nobody remembering that Trump was already president for 4 years and it was basically the same shot as under Biden. In fact, Biden came in from the right, normalizing the pandemic and slashing benefits for the public, then did the usual, “I’m just a widdle president I can’t do nothin’” act when the SC overturned Roe v. Wade. Ah, but now that there is a genocide to support, unlimited billions for Israel, don’t worry he can bypass Congress. Do you see how the system functions? Do you feel enfranchised? How much less enfranchised were you under Trump?
They’re on the same team. Why do you think Harris’ team is celebrate endorsements from Republican war criminals? A human that cared would spit in their faces and announce charges. You are not provided with such an option for your mainstream party “choices”. They laugh at their committed voters, I’ve seen it in person.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is the way it works. If you want the greater of two evils then it’s your choice to not participate.
No, that’s the way you are told it works by your masters so that you work for them instead of against them. You’ll notice that I am not voting for any genociders. Did I break reality!? Or just deviate from a focus group-tested party talking point?
well I’m gonna say… if enabling genocide doesn’t make you a single issue voter I suspect you’re morally deficient of an individual. Frankly while genocide is enough Harris has a number of issues you’re free to overlook by claiming people are ‘single issue’ just because a thread is covering a particular topic.
- doesn’t support labor. (won’t commit to keeping khan, will break a strike whenever convenient)
- won’t be effective at reducing inflation/cost of living.
- won’t be effective at humane immigration.
- won’t be effective at health care reform. both at a cost and medicinally via weed/psychedelics legalization.
Removed by mod
It is not a complex issue. There is a genocide and there are increasing calls to support those genociders electorally. Instead of supporting genociders, you should oppose them.
Liberals call “issues” complex in order to speak euphemistically about the horrible things they support. They do not actually have an understanding of the alleged complexity, it is just a lazy thought-terminating cliché. When you do understand something, you can discuss it directly. At the moment, you are apparently more afraid of using the word genocide than actually being complicut in it yourself. Is this the “complexity” you are referring to? Your personal discomfort? I suspect so.
Unless you’d like to explain how it does…
Being consistently against genocide is the first step towards actually fighting against it. I have set the bar very low. Can you clear it?
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This isn’t a 1,000 year Middle east conflict, it’s a modern-day Western settler-colonialist project. It’s an ~80 year ethnic cleansing project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialismRemoved by mod
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Israel as a settler colonial entity is around 100 years old. Before that, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in the same area with very little sectarian violence for around 800 years.
Removed by mod
You’d say “its nuanced” about colonizers killing indigenous tribes and the indigenous tribes fighting back.
Calling it a thousand year conflict is Zionist propaganda. Plain and simple.
Removed by mod
Yeah sure you’re not saying you agree with them, you’re just repeating their racist propaganda that’s all. Totally different.
Dude, Palestinians lived largely in peace with Jews in what was called Palestine until WW2. This is not an ancient conflict unless you believe antisemitic propaganda. The state of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust, paid for with land from the Palestinians.
Well no there were Zionist terrorists killing people in that area before World War II. We tend to gloss that over in history though for some reason, maybe it’s because so many people that were targeting were the British and everyone was just kind of okay with it.
The state of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust,
The state of Israel was secured through bribery and a will to try to appease an extremist terrorist group who the UN hoped would settle the eff down if they were given the land they had been killing people trying to steal. They didnt end up appeased, and the world didnt owe them land for the holocaust anyway. They should take that up with Germany and bill them for it, not the rest of us.
No, it’s been a little over a 100 years of Settler Colonialist Zionism. Zionism has not existed for 1000 years.
‘Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History’ by Nur Masalha gives a detailed account of it’s history before British Occupation and ‘A History of Modern Palestine’ by Ilan Pappe gives a detailed account of it’s history since the British Occupation.
Origins of Zionism
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
🏆
Removed by mod
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
This is what you said in the context of the current conflict, which is Israel engaging in Genocide of Palestinians. That is a result of Zionism, which is fundamentally a Settler Colonialist Ideology that has only been around for a little over a hundred years, not a thousand.
-
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
I already stated what is not complex. It is that there is an ongoing genocide and that you and others are sheepdogging for the perpetrators. I stated it directly and your response continues this pattern of avoiding even mentioning the term genocide even though it is the topic of this thread and the points I have made.
Re: “1000 year middle east conflict”, this is itself an ahistorical, chauvinist absurdity that papers over the real modern history of colonialism and Zionism and usually has a few dashes of Islamophobia thrown in as well, though yo be honest I would not be surprised if the people sheepdogging for genociders were not particularly familiar with the details of that reference.
More realistically, the “it’s complex” line serves as a way to avoid thinking about or interrogating the topic, it is a way for the ignorant to feel secure despite knowledgeable troublemakers telling them specific but inconvenient things. Like, say, that you should oppose genocide.
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
At the moment I’m trying to navigate middle schooler level chauvinist talking points and asking you to address what I say rather than what you make up. Oh, and to remind you of my main and original point, the one you are afraid to even mention!
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This is Lemmy, there is a limit to which anyone should take anonymous forum comments seriously.
But you should take genocide seriously. If you are not knee-jerk advocating against it, and are instead trying to support its perpetrators, you had better have the very best knowledge and justifications, better than I can even imagine, to make a case for why you support those carrying out the greatest crime.
Everyone should take genocide seriously and that is what people should listen to in my messages. They should also recognize that the responses to my advocacy require dishonest behaviors.
Naturally, as the election approaches, liberals will increasingly panic and try to shut down anything that disagrees with their (pro-genocidal) party line. But I have and will continue to peel those with empathy and honesty off of that track.
Removed by mod
Cherry picking a single detail out of a complex situation doesn’t suddenly make it a simple situation.
Is it a “detail” that fails to include very important context (none of which you can seemingly specify) or is it genocide, something with so much weight that you are afraid to even mention it despite my repeated reminders that it is the topic here?
One of the challenges of evasive and bad faith behavior is that the little quips and pretenses can easily become inconsistent.
Anyways, the actual topic is pretty straightforward. There is a genocide. You should not support those perpetrating it and should instead work against them. So far, you have offered no rebuttal to this outside of straw men and vagaries and posturing.
That is logically fallacious. As is the rest of your argument, which is based on that logical fallacy.
Parrots can repeat many phrases they hear, but they don’t understand their meaning.
Logical fallacies are a set of ways a person can make errors in thinking. The whole point of them is that some nerds thought they were common or important enough to deserve a name. Reflexively accusing me of logical fallacies without naming any, right after I explained how you were using one? Obviously schoolyard “I’m rubber you’re gkue” pantomiming. No understanding, no applicability, just defensive posturing.
And blaming me using disinformation
What disinformation? What did I blame you for?
because I pointed out the fact that your argument is both fallacious and nonsensical, does not make you right either.
Can you tell me when I said or implied, “when I use disinformation against you it means I’m right”? I think you are very confused in both thought and language at this point. You’re relying on quips and phrases that simply do not apply.
Its not 1000 years old. Zionists lie about that to make it seem intractable. Arabs and Jews got along fine for the entire 800 year period of the Ottoman empire which ended in the early 1900s. Learn some history so you dont embarass yourself. its 80 years old, since the land theft, murder, and terrorism of the Nakba, done by Israelis.
Because Trump who literally said Muslims should wear a “Special ID at all times” back in 2015 is obviously gonna be much better…
Read the article. Maybe half or more are voting third party, they hate trump and kamala.
The other, from one of the interviews, the last four years of Democrat led politics has literally been the worst in their lives for both themselves living in america, and for their friends and families who live in the middle east.
Assuming a democrat leader is best for everyone is part of the problem. There are groups of people who suffer under Democrat leadership, and ignoring them is just frustrating them.
The other, from one of the interviews, the last four years of Democrat led politics has literally been the worst in their lives for both themselves living in america, and for their friends and families who live in the middle east.
Were they not alive from 2001 to 2008?
I was and I voted for Kerry in 2004 because of it. It is much worse now though!
With all they’ve been through, at least they have you to tell them how to feel and vote, and which traumas are worse than others.
/s
Careful, you might cut yourself on that edge.
Politics is all edges since our government got completely taken over by bribes from war criminals, so we’re all walking around with some small cuts lately.
And they should know that the Electoral College means that this only helps Trump, who in 2015 wanted Muslims in America to wear “Special IDs”
Biden/Harris aren’t even giving them the chance to wear the special IDs, they wiped out Gaza and took out a few churches and Christians in the process too
Trump meant that for Muslims living in America.
Additionally, Trump has talked about wanting to use nuclear weapons in Gaza multiple times. So I don’t know why you think he’s “better” for the region
No one said he is better but neither are Democrats, both are equally awful for the region.
Some have falsely claimed he wants a ceasefire, while he has talked about “ending the problem quickly”, he has clarified he means by blowing Palestine straight to Hell by throwing everything America’s got at it.
Which is what’s happening already under Biden.
This group is the single greatest gift to the 2024 trump presidency and he doesn’t know it yet!
Harris? I agree, she’s torpedoing a very easy campaign.
At least trump will be a great ally to Palestinians!
Course not, the genocidal US Empire needs to be overthrown. Join an org like FRSO or PSL.
Cant blame them, Biden\Harris are literally sending Israel the bombs.
Both parties are beholden to Israel and the power of AIPAC
Other way around. Both parties support Israel because Israel helps secure the Petro-Dollar, by which the US dominates the Global South with predatory IMF loans.
Context:
- I am not an american, so there may be some missing knowledge for me about the american electoral system.
- I abhor Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and I abhor the biden administration’s support of (and Harris’ seeming continued support of) the genocide.
- My understanding is that Trump is just as, if not more supportive of the genocide in Gaza, and on top of this has his sights on doing some truly terrible things in the US re: minorities, trans rights, etc
So with that context, my question is thus: It seems clear that Trump wouldn’t change anything about the genocide in Gaza, and that he would bring more evil than the current status quo. So if you’re an american voter, you obviously can’t let Trump get in. But, Harris is gross to vote for as well, even if its a “lesser of the two evils” thing. What do you do? As far as I understand its basically one or the other, you dont really have any third party to vote for right?
It’s more of a difference in practical values. At what point does the “lesser evil” itself become intolerable evil? Some people insist that you should vote for Hitler over 101% Hitler, that there is no intolerable level as long as there is a miniscule difference. Others have firm red lines in the sand, like genocide, where they advocate for abandoning them and pushing as hard as you can, even advocating for moves outside the electoral system like revolution.
Your understanding is solid for not being an American. You’re not missing anything substantial-- people who are voting 3rd party think that the “dems need to learn” and that the dems can’t do whatever they want so their vote is supposed to be a punishment. But as you point out that if they really cared about this issue then they would vote for Harris because trump will do worse on this issue and all around. The time to make changes to our political system is not when you vote for president, but in the years leading up to that.
In other words, people voting for 3rd party or Trump over this issue are morons. It sucks that our political system is what it is but if you knowingly vote for anything other than the candidate promising not-fascism, then you are supporting fascism.
I just hope enough democrats understand this. I’m not happy with gaza either but our country is still recovering from the first shit show presidency of Trump, and fascists are closely watching this election.
In other words, people voting for 3rd party or Trump over this issue are morons
incorrect you’re missing context of reliably blue states. I most certainly dont need to vote for democrats and can essentially do what I want w/ respect to the presidential ticket.
All the nonsense from the liberal idiots in the democratic party miss this critical contextual bit of information. I happily vote 3rd party whenever there is one that aligns more closely with my goals. its just rare one does; because it simply doesn’t matter in my state for the outcome.
My ballot typically goes:
- 3rd party for pres
- dem/independents for most local positions
all this blue no matter who are just brain dead lunacy by the party is essentially: The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final and most essential command.
Hopefully some day we’ll be able to have reasonable conversations about the toxicity of the democratic party but we just are not there yet and unfortunately the Ukrainians and Palestinians are paying the price in blood and harris doesnt have the backbone to challenge her corporate owners. Biden lost my support when he broke the train union strike. I believe he and harris would have broken the port workers strike as well if it wasn’t a month before the election.
things that prevent me from voting for harris:
- wont enforce the leahy laws with israel. israel absolutely does have a right to defend itself, it doesn’t have a right to be supported by the US tax payers. if the MIC wants money there is a far more moral war going on we can increase support for. (HUGE red flag)
- wont commit to keeping Ms khan. (HUGE red flag)
- i don’t trust her w/ respect to union support. I believe she’ll break unions just like biden did. which is why he lost my support.
- her continuous attempts to gaslight the american people over biden’s mental decline makes her untrustworthy as an individual.
until then I’ll continue advocating for and campaigning for election reform and primarying useless democrats. She could probably swing my vote if she commits to khan and never breaking a strike as those are important to the health of our country and economy but at this point its clear she wont shift.
You always vote against the fascist and the guy who staged a coup. It’s that simple.
they exist, but the electoral system is designed to keep them from gaining power. And since (most) states use first past the post, secondary preferences aren’t taken into account, so if you vote third party when you would have voted for Harris otherwise you increase Trumps chance of winning. There’s some argument to be made that voting third party or not voting might influence democrats in the future to change their policy to appeal to those voters but I don’t know how realistic that is.
This is limiting the scope of thought to four years.
Democrats winning means genocide becomes fully normalized forever, whereas if Trump wins it means four more years of genocide but the democrats will have learnt they cannot ignore the left.
In the short term Trump will be more damaging, but in the long term it is very debatable which is worse.
Great so now we can have a more certain Trump presidency. Why limit yourself to just one genocide when you can have this guy in power here too:
“How about allowing people to come to an open border, 13,000 of which were murderers, many of them murdered far more than one person, and they’re now happily living in the United States. You know now a murder, I believe this, it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now,”
He hopes that Trump, on the other hand, uses his business acumen to bring down the cost of the products he sells in his store, many of which are imported from overseas. “Trump is not perfect, but we have no choice,” he says.
Hashim’s other major concern is Gaza, where more than 42,000 people have been killed by Israeli attacks. “The No 1 reason [to not vote for Harris] is that she is supporting Israel 100%,” he said.
I don’t understand how someone this stupid is able to run a successful business. The high price of goods now is completely due to republican policies that have taken the brakes off of corporate price gouging and Trump has stated that not only is he 100% supportive of Israel but he will happily supercharge their genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza.
At this point (3 weeks before elections) if she comes out against the genocide, it’s obvious it’s just a career move and not her actual feelings. It will be business as usual afterward.
Apparently this is what her supporters want. As long as they can convince themselves to FEEL like she didn’t want to aid in genocide, that’s all that matters.
People here are already claiming that she’s secretly against Israel and will flip once she wins, they’re in for a surprise (if they’re even being genuine).
I said it sarcastically once! Sorry!
Not just in Michigan ;)
