As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
I voted for Harris, but I feel like it’s pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.
One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I’m not saying “is” here. I’m saying “should be”.
We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there’s value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.
And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu’s whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.
For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It’s not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!
Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that’s not something we can do everywhere. We can’t repeatedly choose the “least miserable option” and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It’s just not possible.
Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, “on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is.”
Some people’s hill is their ballot.
Welcome to the brotherhood of being a human being, though I suspect you’ve been here for some time. we respect your choice to vote for harris.
Russian psyops
This is sadly the most likely scenario, and so many people will follow instead of thinking for themselves.
You say “so many” but I have yet to see any evidence that these accounts aren’t all controlled by the same guy in Moscow.
I’ve never met any IRL. Same as how I’ve never met any Burnie to Trump voters IRL.
I know several people in real life who liked Bernie but voted for Trump. Here in a deep red state.
Do you think they would have voted Burnie over Trump, or did they just dislike Hillary?
I don’t know if they would have. They say they would have. But I think a lot of it is trying to reduce their association with this fucking psychopath narcissist.
Absolutely. This “you’re just a poser lefty if you actually vote for Kamala” stuff is such a psyop. I really really hope people aren’t buying it.
Idealists we all may be, we obviously need to deal with the most immediate danger first, and I hope it’s plenty clear that handing Angry Orange Baby more votes isn’t helping anyone!
What has the current administration actually stopped Israel from doing? Every line in the sand has been crossed and there have been no consequences, trump won’t be worse for Palestine than Kamala
deleted by creator
Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?
https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
Ding! Ding! Here is the correct answer.
I’m beginning to think that liberals and lefties have no clue how government works and they want a strongman/dictator as much as the magahat idiots. They just want one that aligns with their beliefs instead.
The POTUS is NOT all powerful and can make what ever decisions they want. Controlling the house and senate is far more important than whoever is living in the White House. The House and Senate writes the laws and checks to pay for everything. AND they ratify the treaties making them formally binding.
If you want to stop the genocide, elect the people in the house and senate that will effect the actions needed to make it happen.
Waiting several election cycles to end a genocide is insane and there is no world in which that is the moral, ethical, or logical path forward. Hope this helps!
You know you can communicate with your current senator and representative right? Representative is literally their name, they represent you, if enough people apply pressure to the point they think their job is at risk, they will often magically have a “change of heart”.
they represent you
Are you 8 years old?
I’ve actually worked in politics, the amount of people that find it easier to give up because the system is deeply flawed instead of actually doing the hard work of change is astounding. If you want things to change, you have to make your voice heard on something more than lemmy. Representatives nearly all want to keep their jobs. If you show them your motivated enough to contact them, it shows them it’s important enough to you to sway your future vote. I’ve talked to many representatives in my life, at least on the left they generally see their job as representing constituent interests. If enough pressure is applied, they will often change their vote/introduce legislation, etc.
But they are not on lemmy getting the political temperature from keyboard warriors with more snark than braincells.
The thing that keeps their job more than voters is donors. Hope this helps!
They aren’t mutually exclusive and both involve the same thing. The only reason money matters is because it is used to sway voters, people showing they are not swayed by the propaganda invalidates the money.
But it IS the process to get it done. I never said it was ideal. If you don’t like the process, then vote for those that WILL change the process. But that takes time. Until then, we ARE stuck with the laws we currently have in place. That is the reality of the situation. I hope this helps you understand representative democracy vs a dictatorship.
Okay, nobody I can vote for will change the process. Now what?
Also dictatorships, monarchies, etc. pretty universally have some form of petition process as well, so not actually a difference…
Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship. See: North Korea or a few countries in the middle east. Imagine trying to petition the Afghani government as a gay or worse, a trans person.
Governments of any kind are large and ponderous beasts. They cannot change direction as easily as you would like. And like it or not, there are rules and processes that must be followed to make changes. And those things are in place to provide continuity in government and protections to the populace at large. Imagine how much more damage trump could have done without those processes and rules. Imagine what he could do if he wins again after the last SCOTUS ruling.
Like it or not, Biden is bound by a lawful treaty ratified and codified by congress a long time ago. He cannot undo that treaty on a whim. Only congress can do that at this point. Make your changes there. And representatives and senators are local elections and not national. Best of all, YOU could be the change you want. Don’t expect someone else to do it for you.
DPRK trivia- the dprk has universal suffrage and secret ballot. The highest authority in the country is the Supreme people’s assembly with 687 representatives.
US trivia: the US prohibits itself from arming governments credibly accused of significant humanitarian crimes, but then turns the other eye when it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge significant humanitarian crimes.
Like during the genocide in Palestine, where Biden keeps shipping weapons and Blinken has been told to or chosen to keep his eyes closed and his ears stuffed with cotton while his subordinates keep bringing reports of Israeli crimes.
Yes, dictatorships and monarchies sometimes have a petition process, but they tend only to pay lip service. Not because they care, they will do as they please becaue they have the power-- hence a dictatorship.
You’re so close to getting it…
Under federal laws, the US Department of State has a policy prohibiting weapons transfers when it’s likely they will be used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.
In February 2024, Veterans for Peace sent an open letter to the State Department and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, invoking these laws and policies, urging the termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.
deleted by creator
USAID already reported Israel is using hunger as a weapon. Which very much qualifies.
deleted by creator
It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide.
Okay… if its a war crime and not a genocide, that still qualifies as a way to stop sending weapons.
They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country.
Huh wonder if maybe Palestine should be legally recognized as a country to prevent this? Oh well, nothing we can do, since the politicians in power don’t want to do that.
But I don’t think that it can be proven especially seeing as the official government statistics coming out of gaza are provided by a group that is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation.
Every organization operating out of Gaza would get called a terrorist organization by Isreal. It is almost as if America is being intentionally obtuse to allow Isreal to carry out a genocide.
No. They are absolutely not allowed to stop food and aid into the combat zone they created. They are absolutely not allowed to prevent Egypt from sending aid in. They are absolutely not allowed to conduct a naval blockade.
Russia is food secure and has trade access all along Central and East Asia. Norway’s closure is in no way the same thing.
When the professional aid distribution people who work for the United States Agency for International Development tell you it’s happening, then it’s happening.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:
-
Killing members of the group
-
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
-
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part
-
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
-
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
A short list of official allegations of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians (Google):
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent the destruction of evidence and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel’s use of the “Hannibal Directive”
Israel has been accused of using its “Hannibal Directive” policy, which allows for the killing of Israeli soldiers and civilians to prevent them from being taken alive as prisoners of war. This policy has been criticized as a form of genocide.
UN reports
UN experts have reported “grave violations” committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, including “genocidal incitement” and the use of “powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts.” They have also cited evidence of Israel’s intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation.”
Special Rapporteur’s findings
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has found “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. She cited evidence of Israel’s intent to destroy the Palestinian group, including causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and preventing births within the group.
Amnesty International’s research
Amnesty International has gathered evidence of unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, resulting in mass civilian casualties. The organization has criticized Israel’s failure to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, leading to indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes.
Other reports and allegations
Various independent reports and allegations have been made about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including forced transfers, torture, and the destruction of infrastructure. Some have characterized Israel’s actions as genocide, while others have criticized the use of the term without sufficient evidence.
-
I think it’s because of stuff like this:
I’m not a U.S.A-ian. From my view(might be too critical), I don’t think the foreign policy would be greatly affected by the President or party, unless there’s some massive movement and notion of losing resources like during the invasion of Vietnam.
I think you’re generally right that foreign policy won’t be very affected (not sure what the image has to do with it), but domestic policy certainly will be. It’s very disheartening to see all of these self-proclaimed leftists basically discarding LGBTQ people, whose rights are extremely up for debate in this election, to make a performative stance against a policy that both sides support equally.
The US needs to fix their voting system before they can start voting third party. It’s probably even more difficult with Trump
The US needs to vote third party in order to fix the voting system.
It’s too rigged
Or is that something we keep telling people who are voting third party?
Nah, doesn’t seem like that
Funny though how I see it pulled out so often in response.
Yeah could be a common misconception or a misdirection
Maybe, but third party presidential, when there is no legislators is never going to happen, never going to be elected, and never get any bills passed. Aiming for the white house as the first stop is just silly.
You’re more likely to get a socialist revolution than democrats and Republicans getting rid of FPTP at a significant enough level to matter.
That’d be cool
Majority of the people who are saying this are Arab-Americans. They know how bad Trump will be, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Biden back in 2020. Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they’ve become numb and just stopped caring. There have been repeated instsnces of Democrats actually silencing them from speaking up as well. They’ve adopted a scorched earth mentality and are deciding to send a giant “fuck you” to Harris and the entire Democratic party.
And the Democrats are also allowing Israel to do whatever they want. There’s not much of a difference between the two on this topic.
There is a difference between them on this topic.
If Trump were in office now, every liberal here would be screaming for the genocide to end and trying to understand how anyone could let this happen.
With Biden in office and his VP as candidate, they are trying to sell you on their candidate rather than working against the genocide.
Hes gonna genocide better than harris, he guarantees it
nah trump is gonna suck at genocide he’s all talk
There is nothing more you can do to a people beyond killing and expelling nearly all of them.
I’ve actually seen some Muslim American leader (not sure who, maybe the mayor of Dearborn?) saying something like this. At least with Republicans in charge democrats would need to oppose them instead of gleefully supporting the genocide. Not sure how much this logic checks out, but it’s a thing I guess.
The logic definitely checks out. It was far easier to mobilize and educate mainstream liberals under Trump. They have gone to sleep under Biden and become fully accepting of what the administration does. They might say they don’t approve in a poll or something, but get them to leave the house? Only the college students can be mobilized at this time.
I think assuming that people are completely accepting of what the administration is doing, even when they try to voice their opinions in polls, is in bad faith. They simply don’t feel they have the option to not vote. In any other democratic system I genuinely think a third party (greens?) would have a good chance to win this election, but the two party system is so entrenched (at the minimum in the minds of voters), that to not vote is seen as the functional equivalent of voting for the other side.
I’m not in the US so my opinion doesn’t really matter, but I do think that political discourse would be much more productive if people would stop talking past each other and dismissing the motivations/logic of the opposing side.
In any other democratic system I genuinely think a third party (greens?) would have a good chance to win this election
Checking in from Germany. We have a parliamentary system and ~60 of the population is against the genocide and only ~30% are pro-genocide. And this despite a continuous pro-genocide propaganda by almost all media and politicians. It honestly is batshit insane what the german media is becoming. The whole discurse they produce is basically directly restating IDF statements.
But 90+% of the parliament is pro-genocide. Only one fraction (BSW ~1,4%) is strictly against the genocide (but are assholes in other topics) and 1 fraction is divided on the issue (Die Linke ~4%). Our green party is the most stringently pro-genocide party.
It is honestly really hard to not completly lose trust in democracy itself right now.
Bourgeois democracy has always been like this. It presents itself as representative of the people while using a massive array of capitalist-controlled apparatuses to call the shots. Media, jobs, capital strikes, education materials, think tanks, threats to the government. Their first line of defense is “democratic” institutions with enough structure and hurdles to prevent popular will from directly having influence. And, of course, vigilantes and organized right wing thugs when the former don’t work.
I can definitely empathise with the lack of trust in democracy. I’m holding out some hope that things might change once a newer generation starts to take office, but we will see.
But this failing of democracy just makes it seem all the more important that we as a people try to resist the divisiveness of modern politics and media, as that seems to be a common tool of control used by those in power.
I think assuming that people are completely accepting of what the administration is doing, even when they try to voice their opinions in polls, is in bad faith.
Polls happen because paid pollsters call people and do surveys, then compile the results and format it into something consumable for research, entertainment, or propaganda purposes. Polls are not a reflection of what people care about, they reflect what a few hundred or thousand people answered some questions on a Tuesday.
Polls do not tell you what anyone really cares about, because anyone can say they care 4 out of 5 stars even though they won’t leave their house to do anything for anyone else over a 3 year period.
To get people to care, you have to educate them and provide them with a pathway to build power. That is actually the opposite of what these self-appointed genocide salesmen are doing, where the lesson they teach is, “suck it up and vote for the genocider, you are stuck with what was chosen for us”.
They use the same line every time, just with different issues of the day. It is a focus-group-tested way to convince people that otherwise have a conscience that it is okay to check that little box for that sociopath and hey, “why not tell others to do the same? And maybe even start saying they are wrong and bad for not pushing the sociopath as well. And sure, the whole party is full of such people and they only really listen to capital, but also this is your chance to have a voice.”
They simply don’t feel they have the option to not vote.
So you should tell them that they don’t have to vote for any genocide, just like me.
In any other democratic system I genuinely think a third party (greens?) would have a good chance to win this election, but the two party system is so entrenched (at the minimum in the minds of voters), that to not vote is seen as the functional equivalent of voting for the other side.
Uh-huh. Still shouldn’t vote for genocide, let alone tell other people to. It is bad to normalize genocide. Do I need to tell you this? Did you not already know?
I’m not in the US so my opinion doesn’t really matter
I disagree. You are free to develop and share any informed position about any country. And sharing informed opinions is helpful.
but I do think that political discourse would be much more productive if people would stop talking past each other and dismissing the motivations/logic of the opposing side.
That would be nice but it is not exactly a balanced equation on that front; all it takes is for one “side” to be racist and panicking for it to all go off the rails. Such as what is happening right now. Every other reply to my “don’t support genocide” schtick is someone simply making things up and guessing and avoiding what was said. This is because the people who reply are the ones who get the most defensive about their personal morality being questioned, i.e. someone did not accept their support for a genocidal candidate and how dare someone do that to them.
Unfortunately this is literally the only way to agitate. You have to unseat and challenge with a truth that disagrees with the prevailing wisdom. The people that reply will act like absolute pieces of shit at first, but there will also be an audience where some of them go, “huh, that is a good point” and there will be others that start out defensive but then digest and read and move in a better direction.
Finally, you cannot understand societal behaviors without looking at the realities of motivations and tendencies. We are not all independent agents with tabula rasa brains, we are a product of our societies, and yes sometimes those societies are racist and teach you to devalue the lives of, say, black people and brown people and people overseas. And if you cannot recognize that and call that out, you will have a false understanding of how to tackle injustice.
provide them with a pathway to build power
If I understand you correctly, then I very much agree, but I don’t see this happening very much. On one side I see people saying “vote for the lesser of two evils, and then we can focus on changing the system/changing the democrat policies” without actually any clear idea how to do that. On the other side I see “don’t vote for either party, neither major party deserves to win” without any clear idea of how to give any realistic chance for a third party to win.
It is bad to normalise genocide. Did you not know this?
Here again you are using bad faith tactics to dismiss the idea that people in favour of voting might have valid reasons to, instead presenting it as if these people think normalising genocide is a good thing. This is divisive and not constructive at all.
All it takes is for one “side” to be racist and panicky…
Yes I know how quickly controversial discourse can go downhill, but to be that seems all the more reason to not allow our arguments to disintegrate, even if the other sides are.
You have to unseat and challenge with a truth that disagrees with the prevailing wisdom
I definitely agree, I think all widespread “truths” should stand up to scrutiny, but my point is about the way this is done. Challenging a truth/point of view should mean approaching the logical base of that view, and presenting an alternative with reasons why the alternative is better. But so often I see people ignoring the logical base of the other side’s viewpoint, and instead creating straw-men to attack instead, or simply just dismissing the other side entirely through one tactic or another. To be clear, this is done by all sides, I see many people dismissing the argument to vote as simply being “supportive of genocide” (which is obviously ridiculous), while people dismissing the argument to vote third party as being “stupid/ignorant” or other things to that effect, which is also obviously false.
Like you say, we are all products of our societies with different values, but the vast majority of people are reasonably smart and have good intentions. And dismissing people is not a good way of “calling them out”, it only causes further division and makes them even less likely to be receptive to your ideas. If you cannot see the reasons for someone’s beliefs (even if you strongly disagree with those reasons) then you stand very little chance of changing their mind.
If I understand you correctly, then I very much agree, but I don’t see this happening very much.
It happens all the time on a per-organizer basis if you actively do it. The left is currently small but has the capacity to rapidly snowball if it is principled and follows good practices. When you recruit 10 people per year per organizer and 2 of them become organizers, etc etc. And these things will come in waves if you make yourself known and build capacity for onboarding. One year it’s 10 per organizer, the next it may be 50.
My organizations experienced rapid growth under Trump and in Winter-Spring 2024 due to us actively doing work.
On one side I see people saying “vote for the lesser of two evils, and then we can focus on changing the system/changing the democrat policies” without actually any clear idea how to do that.
Yes this is just a line, they don’t really man it. They can’t even say what their goal is most of the time. They just say “push left”, leaving it vague. And of course they’re really telling you to stop making demands when you have the most leverage, to then give up that leverage by pledging to be a guaranteed vote then make their demands when they have the least leverage and gave already proven that they will vote blue regardless.
This line is repeated constantly because it keeps empathetic voters contained and powerless while also gaining some votes for their monstrous candidate.
On the other side I see “don’t vote for either party, neither major party deserves to win” without any clear idea of how to give any realistic chance for a third party to win.
Why does the third party need to win? There are many other outcomes to shedding the false consciousness of lesser evil voting. At the moment, I am highlighting liberals normalizing genocide. One outcone is to recognize that this “democracy” is a genocidal sham and you need to work against its underlying forces. Another is to effectively boycott so as to demonstrate illegitimacy of who is elected, which has a long history. Another us to begin creating a voting bloc that doesn’t ounch itself in the face every 4 years and actually makes demands with a credible threat. That voting bloc would also eventually fail because again, this “democracy” is a sham, but those people can then be organized against the genocidal status quo.
Here again you are using bad faith tactics to dismiss the idea that people in favour of voting might have valid reasons to, instead presenting it as if these people think normalising genocide is a good thing. This is divisive and not constructive at all.
It is not bad faith, it is the truth. Treating genocide like a typical lesser evil you have to accept is normalizing it. It was, allegedly, a red line, and now liberals are falling over themselves to erase that line.
This revelation probably makes you uncomfortable, but it is not false or unfair. You can see it throughout this thread. They try to avoid the topic at first, then speak euphemistically. Try asking them to say this: “I am against genocide and will never vote for a genocider”. Can you say that?
Yes I know how quickly controversial discourse can go downhill
“Controversial” my ass, I said they were panicking and racist. So much for “good faith”, eh? Don’t whitewash my framings and pretend it is what we are talking about.
but to be that seems all the more reason to not allow our arguments to disintegrate, even if the other sides are.
You are being so vague that I can’t even tell what you are recommending. This topic is something you brought up, trying to both sides communication, and what I am telling you is that there is a verifiable imbalance.
I definitely agree, I think all widespread “truths” should stand up to scrutiny, but my point is about the way this is done. Challenging a truth/point of view should mean approaching the logical base of that view, and presenting an alternative with reasons why the alternative is better.
Incorrect. That is fine for internal strategy discussions among people that agree with one another. It is absolutely terrible media and discursive strategy.
There is not a logical base for most political views. That is usually a rationalization for more basic feelings, like status, security, whether you are a good person, whether the bad people are getting what they deserve.
But so often I see people ignoring the logical base of the other side’s viewpoint, and instead creating straw-men to attack instead, or simply just dismissing the other side entirely through one tactic or another.
Because it isn’t about the logical base. I can present concrete facts and demonstrate pure logical contradiction in another person’s arguments and they will simply deflect. Their ego gets in the way, an ego taught to them by a society where having an opinion is important for status and self-worth and every disagreement is about destroying the other side. They will lie, deflect, insult, say racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic things. Having revealed that they have no logical base and are just Himmler Lite, any pretense that you are just going after logic and debate will undermine you and become a trolling session for them.
These are not the people you are trying to reach anyways. It is the audience at the borderline that need that, “oh shit my side is racist and I reject that” kind of push. Again, not about a logical base.
To be clear, this is done by all sides, I see many people dismissing the argument to vote as simply being “supportive of genocide” (which is obviously riduculous)
It is not ridiculous you are literally voting for someone doing a genocide and telling other people to do the same. Despite your complaints you have not addressed the clear basis for this claim and are doing that thing right now: deflecting through dismissal built entirely on sentiment, not any logical basis. I should not need to explain to you that “I am voting for a genocider and so should you” is a pro-genocide stance. But your discomfort in your complicity, the threat to you feeling like a good person, means you need to start dissembling.
while people dismissing the argument to vote third party as being “stupid/ignorant” or other things to that effect, which is also obviously false.
The people dismissing that are repeating canards handed to them by their faction of the political class. They are only needed insofar as the person returns to feeling like they are good and smart for voting for a genocider. You can watch them fall apart in real time when you try to discuss their alleged “logical base”, like discusing game theory and electoral strategy. They were not actually convinced to vote that way because of simplistic half-understood electoral math, they were convinced by allegiance to a political program that aligns with their idea of being a good person. And as bourgeous morality goes, they will then start making personal moralizung arguments, and then they must be reminded they are voting for a genocider.
Then we come full circle and they fall apart. Repeat ad nauseum.
Like you say, we are all products of our societies with different values, but the vast majority of people are reasonably smart and have good intentions.
Not true. Intentions are not inherently good when the society that crafted them is racist, genocidal, misigynist, etc. Being the product of conditions means the dominant intention can be oppressive and violent. With education they could acquire good intentions. If raised in a less oppresser society, they could have good intentions. But you don’t get to whitewash the bad intentions of those shoring up violence and oppression, including genocide. Those are not good intentions, they ar self-serving corrosive behaviors learned from their social circles.
And dismissing people is not a good way of “calling them out”, it only causes further division and makes them even less likely to be receptive to your ideas.
100% incorrect, certainly when it comes to media and fronts, which is more like how social media operates. The most effective means of agitation is direct callouts, particularly when it comes to reactionary positions that need to be made socially unacceptable.
The person receiving the callout will get defensive, but they do that anyways regardless of how you frame the problem in what they are saying. But now they get to coast by and pretend to be in the right and the audience will also miss this. Over time, that defensiveness can and does lead to change, where many go and do some research and come back in a few months as if they had always held a different position. Online, they might just make a new account. I’ve seen users bullied for their transphobia do this repeatedly, they got less transphobic over time but were still recognizably the same user.
If, on the other hand, someone is already sympathetic and not oppositional, they will let you know this early on. The main thing they will do is commiserate and ask questions. These are the people you can gently correct as they are not just trying to reaffirm their biases - such as to the white race and whose suffering they care about - and status as a good person by retaining them.
If you cannot see the reasons for someone’s beliefs (even if you strongly disagree with those reasons) then you stand very little chance of changing their mind.
Buddy I have recruited more people than you’ve ever talked to online.
this is strangely true? but I can see the feds (who control the media) pivot narratives again where trump is still bad, but what he’s doing is okay because (hasbara such as beheaded babies & mass rape claims, false flag, atrocity propaganda). feds aren’t very intelligent. they do the same shit over and over again.
Yeah, the first time the press core deigned to call him “presidential” was when he launched rockets at Syria. The second time was when he assassinated Suleimani.
That’s the thing. I see a more likely scenario where the genocide is hindered under Trump. Not because Trump opposes it, but because it would suddenly become fashionable for liberals to oppose it.
If anyone hasn’t already lost their Israel-colored glasses, they’re not coming off.
I think they would continue staying hone, this time out of spite, until Trump ramps something up and they are given permission to care by their political class, who would attempt to coopt the the pro-Palestine movement while still being explicitly Zionist.
If the election were between Trump and somehow someone even worse who was calling to nuke the entire area and turn it into glass, then I would absolutely be pushing for Trump. Shockingly, if we are trapped in a horrifying, dystopian version of the trolley problem (which we are), I’m going to make the choice that causes the least damage.
Using another analogy, if you have a badly broken arm, you can either set it and try to keep it immobilized, or you can let it stay how it is and all but guarantee that it gets fucked up even worse as it heals wrong. Voting third party is like saying “I don’t like either of those options since they both involve my broken arm, so I choose to pray to the Moon Goddess”. There is no option that immediately stops your arm from being broken. You can delude yourself and say the Moon Goddess will magically fix it, but in reality, you are choosing the option that does nothing and makes it worse. Choosing to set your broken arm doesn’t make you “pro-broken arm”, it’s just the only practical choice given a terrible situation.
If the election were between Trump and somehow someone even worse who was calling to nuke the entire area and turn it into glass, then I would absolutely be pushing for Trump.
It does not get worse than genocide. The habit of inventing a hypothetical bigger and harder gun to hold to marginalized peoples’ heads doesn’t work on this one.
Shockingly, if we are trapped in a horrifying, dystopian version of the trolley problem (which we are), I’m going to make the choice that causes the least damage.
We are not trapped in a trolley problem. You are a human with agency. You can join organizations, you can educate, you can take action. Reducing your political agency to a lever pull for genocide is a helplessness taught to you by the political class because they just want you to vote for them even when they commit genocide right in front of your eyes. They want you to think of Palestinian lives as strategically expendable and that you are actually smart, not racist, for toeing that line. And your compliance with their demands is exactly what ensures they can shove any monster down your throat as a candidate. Harris is complicit in genocide and didn’t win a single primary but Dems say, “well, time to fall in line”. Dems strategists know that “progressive” Dems do this so they do nothing for them in policy, they just deploy PR goons to vote against every 4 years. Compliant voters enable their own irrelevance.
Though of course, voting is very limited and there is much more to be done.
Using another analogy
I refuse to entertain analogies justifying genocide.
See, doing it as a bloc with public visibility I can see. That actually has some chance of swaying at least the rhetoric. But I still think if they actually go through with not voting, they’re voting against their own interests. The right is rabidly xenophobic and loves Israel, the only thing Trump will do to end the genocide is send even more military support.
Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they’ve become numb and just stopped caring.
The craziest part of this to me is that this isn’t the first time this has happened since it’s started like… since the country has been founded. So the fact they’re really still willing to engage politically at all is a pretty good testament to their character, I would say.
This was all laid out in 2020 and we said the fight wasn’t over. We said even if biden won the dems will never be, ‘good enough’ because we all remember Obama. Objectively the best president of my lifetime and catches shit on a number of issues. The dems won’t ever be good enough. The fight can’t end until people learn that politics doesn’t stop when a presidential election is over.
Joe Biden should have been primaried. I said it for 4 fucking years. I will say the same about Kamala. She needs to actually win the fucking primary.
That doesn’t change the course, though. No amount of moral posturing is going to ignite a fire in out despondent electorate. You want a government that works for you. Participate.
US Elections are decided when they do redistricting and manipulate the voting districts to ensure the results they want and isn’t a real democracy. The US is run by oligarchs who run their enterprise corporations and the power is concentrated there, not in the government.
Though true, doesn’t answer the asked question in any way. You still get to choose between shitty and fucking horrific AND shitty. So why abstain?
Because they don’t understand that voting is just one part of the democratic process.
I voted party for socialism and liberation and you can too!
They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.
Psl is eligible for enough electoral votes to win in a landslide!
If genocide is your red line then they’ve crossed it. How will you respond?
I think something that contributes to people talking past each other here is a difference in belief in how necessary/desirable revolution/overthrow of the U.S government is. Like many of the people who I’ve talked to online, who advocate not voting and are also highly engaged, believe in revolution as the necessary alternative. Which does make sense. It’s hard to believe that the system is fundamentally genocidal and not worth working within (by voting for the lesser evil) without also believing that the solution is to overthrow that system.
And in that case, we’re discussing the wrong thing. Like the question isn’t whether you should vote or not . it’s whether the system is worth preserving (and of course what do you do to change it. How much violence in a revolution is necessary/acceptable). Like if you believe it is worth preserving, then clearly you should vote. And if you believe it isn’t, there’s stronger case for not voting and instead working on a revolution.
Does anyone here believe that revolution isn’t necessary and also that voting for the lesser isn’t necessary?
The opposite is more plausible to me: believing in the necessity of revolution while also voting
Personally I believe that revolution or its attempt is unlikely to effective and voting+activism is more effective, and also requires agreement from fewer people in order to progress on its goals. Tragically, this likely means that thousands more people will be murdered, but I don’t know what can actually be effective at stopping that.
They can’t be arsed to choose pragmatically between two bad candidates when voting and we’re to believe they can do a revolution that involves several harder choices? Do these people think revolutions are easy walks in the park where you never have to make hard choices like, for example, killing your neighbors for being in the way of the revolution or how to handle POWs, etc.
Some people assume that voting and political activism are mutually exclusive, these people are stupid and won’t win a revolution. These two things are not mutually exclusive, voting doesn’t stop you from protesting and being politically engaged and vice versa.
Oh man this thread is a real breath of fresh air, thank you three for having heads on your shoulders.
Wow, it’s almost as if someone being bad can be for multiple reasons!
Yeah, for instance: funding a genocide, xenophobic immigration policy, building the wall, dropping the ball on covid right before delta/omicron, a lack of healthcare reform, the inability to protect abortion rights, being a cop, denigrating anti-genocide protestors, racially profiling Muslims at your events
inability to protect abortion rights
“I was robbed”
“I blame you more than the thief because you should have protected your stuff better!”
It’s not the democratic politicians who were robbed. It’s the democratic politicians who were complicit in us getting robbed of our rights.
It’s the Republican politicians that actually robbed you of those rights, and you are actively helping them get more power to do it again. Make it make sense.
So if one person is holding you at gunpoint while another rummages through your pockets, you should definitely only be mad at the one going through your pockets right?
If one person is standing by not doing anything while another person steals my stuff, I’m definitely going to be more mad at the person who actually stole my stuff.
If I am forced to leave one of them alone with my stuff I will make sure it’s not the stole from me.
How about: Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, going mask-off calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, ending the Iran nuclear deal, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”, spreading vaccine disinformation until one was developed before the end of his term, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, being an avowed friend of Epstein, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights (+ setting up the conditions that led to their erosion; see supreme court point above), and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened).
I guess he’s not a cop though, so there’s that.
(minor edits made for grammar/spelling)
The promise is that Harris is essentially a continuation of Biden so with that in mind comparing to your list above:
Similarities ✓ the “Muslim Ban” on air travel, employing white nationalists as staffers, packing the supreme court with extreme conservative justices, giving permanent tax cuts to the rich, expanding the presence of immigrant concentration camps, cozying up to foreign dictators, directly pursuing strikes and assassination attempts against middle-Eastern military generals and diplomats, trying to start a trade war with China, discrediting his chief medical advisor on factual statements about Covid, saying Black Lives Matter protestors were “burning down cities”, wanting to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, declaring “far left radical lunatics” part of his “enemy from within”, sexually assaulting over a dozen women and underage girls, being a generally abusive sleazebag, also funding a genocide (Israel has always been ethnically displacing Palestinians), also building the wall, also not implementing healthcare reform (and being against what we have), also not protecting abortion rights, and also denigrating anti-genocide protestors (but not as harshly since he wasn’t the one in charge when it happened)
Differences: X Popularizing the idea of the wall in the first place, calling illegal immigrants “murderers and rapists”, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, being an avowed friend of Epstein, stating he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler’s behind closed doors when his own generals refused to nuke North Korea and blame it on someone else, egging on a far-right insurrection attempt, calling climate change a Chinese hoax, calling Covid the “China virus”
They are faaaarrrr more similar than they are different as honestly some of the “differences” I’ve noted are just because the exact quotes aren’t the same, even if some similiarly spirit quotes have been said.
https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
Looks like the campaign has a whole bunch of things besides “orange man bad”. All there on the official page easy to find.
It seems like someone saying the entire campaign is “orange man bad” hasn’t bothered to listen to anything being said and is just focusing on the most salient point in a bad faith effort to discredit them.
“Be more than just orange man bad”
Here’s a list
“Kamala bad”
I thought we were asking for more than just “opposition bad”?
But if we’re going the “opposition bad” route find me a single item in that list that Trump wouldn’t make worse.
You know, the entire topic of the thread: even if Kamala isn’t good, Trump is significantly worse in every way, and one of them will be president.
This is really clever if you’re okay with convincing yourself that you know exactly and completely what other people believe… Otherwise it’s a reductionist hot take filled with logical fallacy.
4 years ago, Democrats said the border wall was stupid and bad. They said that Republicans were racist for claiming all Mexicans were drug dealers and criminals. Today, Harris is saying she’s gonna build the border wall, be tough on migrants, and has basically adopted Trump’s policies on immigration.
There is no indication that the Democrats will not be just as bad as the Republicans on Israel in 4 years.
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
This election should be a slam dunk victory for Harris. The data shows that adopting leftist progressive policies is popular. Biden dropping out resulted in $4 million in small donor fundraising. Picking Walz resulted in another $2 million. People got really excited when it looked like the Democratic party was making leftist progressive movement.
Since then, the Dems have been aggressively moving towards the center. More lethal military, inciting panic about the border, ignoring Palestine. This has resulted in an extremely tight race as people are no longer excited to vote for Harris.
I want Harris to win. Moving leftward politically will attract more voters. Taking a firm stance on stopping the Israeli government’s genocide is a leftist progressive policy. The bag is right there, she just needs to grab it.
The opposite of „not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump“ isn’t true because of the electoral college, which heavily skews towards rural states with not many voters, which are often conservative.
You need roughly 4 Californian votes to match 1 Wyoming vote. That’s why Republicans seldom win the popular vote and still manage to win elections.
So if left leaning people don’t vote (or vote third party), the negative effect for Harris is amplified in comparison to conservatives.
Well, in that case, the Democrats should adopt policies that attract more left leaning voters. Saying stuff like, “I will prosecute migrants” doesn’t make any sense because if that is an important topic to a voter, why wouldn’t they just vote Trump who has promised that and more?
If the problem is, “not enough left leaning votes”, the solution seems like, “attract more left leaning votes”. People in this country love progressive leftist policies like universal healthcare or not funding genocides, no matter their party affiliation. People have not responded well to neo-liberal/conservative policies like means testing school lunches or increasingly stringent border laws.
And yet, the Democratic party continually adopts neo-liberal/conservative policies. It feels like voting Democrat is just, “voting Republican but slower”. The Democratic party has accepted the Republican framing about an imaginary migrant crisis, and that was with a much more firm stance against racism only 4 years ago. Yeah, they would possibly be better on Israel’s genocide than Republicans, but all the actions protesting the genocide have been met with vitriol from the current administration. It seems far more likely that the Democrats would just do the same thing as Republicans, just less loudly.
The Democratic party cannot expect to win simply because, “orange man bad”. They have not shown they will not continue to adopt Republican ideas and policies. If they want people to vote for them, they should do things to attract those voters. They should stop doing things that pushes away voters.
It’s not as easy as you make it out to be.
The Democrats have to try to achieve the impossible: trying to retain left-leaning voters while getting enough centrists/swing votes to overcome the systematic disadvantage the electoral college poses for them.
In a de facto two party system that puts them between a rock and a hard place.
But what does that mean for you as a (I assume) left leaning voter?
It’s actually quite simple: vote for the least bad option.
By not voting for Harris you may successfully show the democrats your discontent for their policies. But you pay for that by helping a possible fascist into power (remember: we already found out that not voting, helps republican candidates in most cases), who will be far worse on most policies you care about.
It really doesn’t feel like the Democrats are the least bad option when they keep adopting Republican policies. Sure, they don’t want to kill trans people or conduct mass deportations now, but it sure feels like 4 years down the line I’m gonna be asked to vote Democrat even though Harris or whoever is trying to increase police budgets to “fight rising crime” or something ridiculous.
I keep having to vote for “the least bad option” while the Democratic party only ever courts neo-liberal/conservative voters. It really seems like my options are Fascist Now Party or Fascist Later Party. If the Democrats don’t listen when I vote and don’t listen when I abstain, why should I vote?
I feel like it is not a winning campaign strategy to say, “vote for Democrats because the Republicans are far worse”. Progressive left policies are popular amongst centrist and swing voters, so it isn’t like the Democrats will lose centrists by adopting progressive policies. Everybody likes expanding healthcare. Nobody likes genocide. So if adopting progressive policies attracts voters from all across the spectrum, why are the Democrats only focusing on stuff like, “build the wall” or “stay silent about genocide”?
removed by mod
Based on how liberals have accepted genocide as necessary at this point, the “fascism later” option seems more likely to make people comfortable with fascism, rather than buying us time to resist.
removed by mod
The electoral college ensures the vote in California has nothing to do with the one in Wyoming.
You still haven’t provided any proof that the net result of third party or not voting favors republicans though. It could just as easily still be neutral, or favor democrats.
It’s not rocket science. The person I responded to said they want Harris to win. Thus they are a potential Harris voter. When they don’t vote, Harris loses a potential vote, not Trump.
Depending on where they live, this gets amplified by the systemic disadvantage of left-leaning states in the electoral college.
If someone says they want kamala to win but doesnt vote for her, maybe you shouldnt trust what they say.
Classic progressive defeatist mantra: you’re not left enough so fuck you. Bring on the fascist.
The anti-genocide people have drawn a line in the sand and decided to stick to that principle. I think it is pretty reasonable to have lines you do not cross with genocide being a pretty understandable one. These people have decided, “if you use our tax dollars for genocide, we will not vote for you”.
You are asking them to, “ignore the genocide stuff and focus on the good stuff”, but unlike Biden, these people have red lines they will not cross.
If you don’t want fascists to come into power, then the Democrats should stop doing fascism-lite. I think it is reasonable for people not to support fascism-lite. They should indeed move further left away from the fascism they are barreling towards.
Stupid take. Genocide light is better than genocide on steroids. Netanyahu wants Trump to win so he can go in and show you what real genocide looks like.
Do you even hear yourself?
100%. And you are either a Russian/Chinese troll or worse, an idiot that think a dictator wannabe is better than a moderate.
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
You’re missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.
Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn’t mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.
There are far more people that don’t vote than there are conservative democrats. In fact, non-voters are the biggest chunk of population in this country. Instead of courting the center conservative voters, wouldn’t it make more sense to target non-voters with policies that have been proven to be widely popular?
People like progressive left-leaning policies. Streamlining the citizenship process for immigrants is popular. Fighting price gouging is popular. Not supporting genocide is popular. It seems like getting the couch potatoes excited to vote would have more beneficial results than trying to attract conservative democrats with unpopular neo-liberal conservative policies.
You simply cannot count votes you never had.
Democrats making obviously winning plays? You cannot be serious.
They are intentionally bad at politics. Their greatest skills are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and shitting and falling back in it. Wanna see how for yourself? Dig into the DNC. They’re not a political entity, they’re a corp. And they work for the interests of corps. If what they do occasionally isnt absolute shit its almost entirely incidental.
Thanks for the elaborated comment! Don’t mind the negativity around the replies, some ppl are so simple they will hate until you literally say ‘Harris good, Trump bad’.
I’ve recently seen a nice description of that - “peasant mindset”.
People who are not ready and willing to peacefully discuss reality with literally anyone, and most of all marginal and weird viewpoints, like sovcits and antivaxxers, because those are more interesting, - have that “peasant mindset”.
(I’ve found something like that in my head too this morning, so sharing the thought.)
Aggression is a sign of fear, and fear is something we feel when we are not ready to change our mind if we get some good arguments, or when we get bad, insufficient arguments, but are pressed to change our mind anyway.
Why can we not be ready for that, feel powerless before that possibility of deciding to think differently 5 minutes from now?
Because there’s something that we follow like a peasant follows their master. It’s the assumed identity, the family, the group, the party, the state, the nation. Such a decision, and a decision to discuss reality preceding that, is an act of defiance toward those. It’s a conflict, and we as humans sometimes try to avoid conflicts. It’s like discussing orders. Only there’s not a single soul above us who is entitled to order us how we vote or how we think.
Every decision worth making is destructive, everything new comes in the place of something old and something that could be, there’s nothing to fear.
Changing one’s mind by a conscious decision after careful consideration is a sign of having personal dignity. Not changing one’s mind in the same situation is too a sign of having personal dignity.
Keeping your head down and trying to eat anyone not in line is not.
(too long again)
