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.
The U.S. also has a huge defense industry that has made people ridiculously rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Those billionaires are heavily invested in the defense industry, so it’s not in their interests that wars end at all.
This is that “military-industrial complex” that former President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. His concern was that the U.S. would become bogged down in an endless series of “forever wars” that do nothing but transfer wealth to the already-wealthy.
Keeping that military industrial complex well-fed is the reason why so many politicians have such a boner for war. Not only to keep their wealthy sponsors happy, but to keep tax money and jobs flowing to their states, which just happen to manufacture war materiel.
Solid analysis
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Never again means never again, I will not be party to it.
That’s too simplistic. The two parties will either make it worse or not make it better. Not voting (assuming you are in a state without winner-takes-all or are in a swing/purple state) is letting other people decide for you. Walking away from the trolley problem doesn’t untie people from the tracks.
You’re completely missing the point of the trolley problem:
Do you take an action that causes a direct harm, even if it’s in service to reducing harm?
It’s a valid moral stance to decide you will not personally perform a harmful action. That’s not walking away from the trolley, that’s refusing to throw the switch.
Your framing of the situation is false. Voting for Harris is throwing the switch and dooming Palestinians. Voting third party/not voting is not throwing the switch: you are not condoning the system that runs people over, you are not taking an action that directly harms people.
To be clear, throwong the switch is also a valid moral stance.
Personally, I believe voting for Harris prolongs our faulty political system. I voted for Kerry, then Obama (first willingly, then let myself be guilted into it). The Democrats have only gotten worse with time, and I won’t vote for a party that represents me less with time instead of more.
Walking away from the switch is making a choice. You’re exactly as complicit in the result as if you had flipped the switch.
When someone constructs a catch-22, the answer isn’t to play their game, it’s to build a new one, leave, or at the very least refuse to accept their false options. Genocide is not inevitable, no matter how many US democrats and republicans tell you that it is.
But this isn’t a mental exercise, this is real life. The choice and all of its consequences are still happening regardless of your choice to disengage. They aren’t “false options”, they’re printed on the ballot. The only way to reject the premise here is actual spontaneous massive revolution, and if you’re suggesting that as an alternative to voting, well, I don’t imagine you’re of voting age anyway.
They aren’t “false options”, they’re printed on the ballot.
I printed two options on my ballot. Give your consent for one of these options!
- Kill Palestinian civilians
- Kill Palestinian civilians
Printing them on there makes it real.
The only way to reject the premise here is actual spontaneous massive revolution, and if you’re suggesting that as an alternative to voting, well, I don’t imagine you’re of voting age anyway.
Standard liberal smugness, decrying the backbreaking efforts and blood spent by hundreds of millions of mostly poor peasants who fought and succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of colonialism.
Right, I’m “decrying” successful revolutions because I don’t believe that your armchair activism is going to start any actual movement capable of disturbing the status quo.
Reddit logic isn’t going to convince me to support a genocide candidate, sorry. My vote was never yours. There’s no tent big enough that Dick Cheney being invited in won’t result in me wanting to burn the whole tent down.
Where was he invited?
So Dick Cheney decides your politics for you?
I don’t vote for republicans… If you pander to and platform republicans, I will not vote for you. If you plan to put a republican in your cabinet, I will not vote for you. If your immigration plan is just the republican plan from 8 years ago, i will not vote for you. If you insist that I must support genocide otherwise there will be more genocide, I will not vote for you…
So if Dick Cheney said “Russia is terrible, you should support Ukraine” you would oppose Ukraine because Dick Cheney supports them?
Opposing everything Dick Cheney does is mindless and is allowing Dick Cheney to decide what you support.
I will not vote for you
I will not vote for you
I will not vote for you
It looks like you’re not going to vote for anyone anyway so why should either party care what you want?
I voted bud, just not for Harris. I.don’t.vote.for.republicans.
If national democrats want to platform all the pre 2016 republican policies, I will not vote for them.
Lots of down ballot stuff, so take your win.
This was where I was at 6 months ago. They even had the gall to say, “things will shape up as we get closer.” This is an attack vector and no, it will only go away after the election. People who defend the stance who aren’t foreign actors are useful idiots.
Three points:
- Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn’t stop reminding us of in everything but, “strangely”, not this subject) and isn’t even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump’s word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
- If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn’t much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it’s very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
- Some people simply put their moral principles above “yeah but” excuses and won’t vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.
In summary:
- Trump’s Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris’ is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
- A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they’re supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the “wrong” ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that’s the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it’s the least bad choice.
- Some people can’t just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn’t even a “choose a good thing” but actually a “choose a lesser evil”, and “Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies” is pretty strong as moral principles go.
- If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power.
If the Republicans get absolutely walloped in the election for running a wannabe dictator, it will show them that the extremism isn’t going to work and they have to run reasonable candidates to have a chance at winning. Then next election when they present someone who isn’t a megalomaniacal idiot who wants to be a “Dictator Day 1” it will require the Democrats to do better and put more effort than “not a dictator.”
Letting the Republicans be this close will cause the Democrats to move further right because the leftists aren’t going to vote for them anyway, and they sure as fuck won’t vote for Republicans, so moving to the right to steal 1000 votes from Republicans is better than moving left and gaining 1500 votes from people who otherwise wouldn’t vote.
Whilst the first paragraph does make some sense, it presumes that in such a situation the Republicans would not conclude it’s the style of the candidate rather than his ideas that caused the rout. That might be a little optimist considering that the traditional Republicans’ were just as far right economically before and almost as right in Moral issues, but they had a different style of candidate (remember Reagan?).
It might also be a little optimist to expect an absolute walloping of anybody, Republican or Democrat.
That said, it’s a valid scenario, though it relies on very low probability events.
The second paragraph is inconsistent with every single thing the Democrats have done in their pre-electoral propaganda, from the whole “vote us or get Trump” (something which wouldn’t scare the Right) to the raft of pre-election promises on Left-wing subjects like student debt forgiveness or tightening regulations on giants such as Telecoms a little bit. If they really thought they could win with only votes stolen from the Right, they would be making promises which appeal to the Right, not the Left.
Besides, the whole idea that Rightwing voters would go for the less-Rightwing party rather than the more-Rightwing party is hilarious: why go for the copy if you can get the real deal?
From what I’ve seen in other countries were Center-Left Parties totally dropped their appeal to the Left and overtly went to appeal to the Right, they got pummeled because the Maths don’t add up and, as I said above, Rightwing votes will choose the “genuine article” over the “wannabes”.
It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
Are you talking about nations with better electoral systems that can support more than 2 parties?
Yes, in a 3+ party system Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them but losing 1500 votes to Party C in the process is a bad play.
In a “Winner takes all” 2 party system where the only thing that matters is having 1 more vote than your opponent to have 100% of the power, Party A moving closer to Party B to take 1000 votes from them is a better position even if it causes them to lose 1900 votes from people who now won’t vote for either party. Moving further away from Party B to get 1000 votes from people who are refusing to vote is a losing position if it causes them to lose 501 votes to Party B.
In a 2 party system chasing the people who are actually voting will always be twice as good than chasing the people who aren’t voting.
You have it backwards: going after the natural voters of the other side in a two-party system is the riskiest thing you can do because the other party has a massive advantage with those voters which is an historical track record of telling them what they want to hear and them voting for it - rightwingers trust them on Rightwing subjects and are used to voting for them.
Even if (and it’s a massive massive if) a party succeeds at it once due to the party on the other side having deviated too much from its traditional ideology, all it takes for the party on the other side is to “get back to its roots” to recover most of those lost votes and subsequently win, whilst meanwhile the leftmost party that moved to the right has created for itself an obstacle in their own “going back to its roots” in the form of a section of the electorate which feels they were betrayed.
Sure, they’ll eventually get it back if they themselves quickly “go back to their roots”, but it will take several electoral cycles.
Further, if that gap remains too long on the Left even in a two party system it would create room for a third to grow, starting by local elections, then places like Congress, then Senate and eventually even the Presidency.
One of of the key ways in which First Past The Post maintains a Power-Duopoly is because growing a party enough to challenge the rest in multiple electoral circles takes time and the duopoly parties will try to stop it (generally by changing back their policies to appeal to the core voters of that new Party).
The US itself once had the Whig Party as one of the power duopoly parties and that exists no more.
The Democrats abandoning the Left is not a stable configuration for them and carries both the risk that the Rightwing electorate sees them as fake and the Leftwing electorate feels betrayed, and now they’re stuck in the middle with a reduced vote.
You’re saying if a party strays too far that another party can steal some of its voters, the party can “return to its roots” and get all those voters back.
You’re also saying if a party strays too far it can’t just “return to its roots” and get those voters back because they don’t trust them.
You are contradicting yourself. If Republicans suddenly become a rational party they’ll be trusted by rational people as much as if Democrats suddenly became a leftist party.
You’re also telling yourself: there’s no reason for the Democrats to move left because you’re not going to trust them anyway. If Kamala came out tomorrow and promised everything you were wanting to say you wouldn’t believe her or vote for her.
The fact is Republicans are going full Fascist, and there are people with conservative ideologies who don’t want fascism. That is why they will vote for a Democratic Party shifting to the right instead of the “original right wing party”.
Sure, creating a vacuum on the left increases the viability of a third party, but that’s not going to be viable this election so they don’t have to worry about it.
Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.
Right-wing oned did the same tbh. In Poland socdem party went from nearly having constitutional majority (2/3rd seats) to complete obliteration and losing every single seat in two terms because they turning into center-right neoliberals (which alrady had their own party so nobody voted on them), but it didn’t make them any wiser, they still do the same neoliberal st. Vitus dance, though they managed to marginally return to mainstream since (on a leftwing promises which they didn’t even tried to do anything about it).
Ultimately the party which did the minimal bone throwing was protofascist PiS and this given them 2 full term in government because even tiny breach of absolute austerity policy we see since 1989 shocked people incredibly.
i agree mostly with you, even thought i’m a foreigner. i’d just like to point out that even though there are doubts about trump continuing america’s support of a genocide (and i believe he won’t have that much of a problem since both major parties in america support it), there’s everything else about him.
and also, everything else about the dems too. let’s just say that major lawfare campaigns against progressive governments here in latin america have been conducted under dem rule in the u.s… brazil and uruguay had their coups d’état orchestrated by the johnson administration. honduras, paraguay and brazil suffered lawfare coups under the obama administration.
It’s sad that no democrats are pulling to the left on the major foreign policy issues. Illian Omar said the best thing for Ukrainian children is to ensure that Ukrainian nazis can control regions they hate. Bernie has recently said that “Israel has the right to defend itself” even if he has also said a ceasefire is important. The only voice who would trade the demonic warmongering US empire for an extra hotel or two is Trump.
There is a real possibility that the person who would be best for Palestine would be Trump simply because he doesn’t follow through on what he says and is too incompetent when he does.
It’s a very sad state of affairs that the US Presidential Candidate that might be the least Nazi-supporting one is Trump, not because of his ideology not being Fascist but because he’s incompetent, inconsistent and has a tendency for non-interventionism.
It’s an interesting take. I believe he will just let GOP do project 2025 while he plays golf. He definitely hates muslims and other minorities to his core, and Israel gives him/family too much money to not commit to genocide the media fully supports him on.
Trump is in danger of GOP turning on him for impeachment. CIA/war/oil machine wants to keep the declining colonies they have left, and Ukraine permawar is recipe for that. $300 oil prices from war on Iran is a good thing for GOP. He’s still said out loud how he will be so unanimously loved that he will get a third term without a need for another election.
Both candidates will support Israel, so for pro palestine voters it’s a “Would you like to vote for the Shitty Party, or Less Shitty Party” situation, where not voting from these parties is shunned upon because it will help Shitty Party win.
It’s not just shunned, it’s literally throwing your vote away. Voting laws in the US, including the electoral college, mean that it is literally impossible for a third party to win the presidential election. We need ranked choice or other alternative voting methods, and the EC needs to go away.
It’s only worthless if it’s third party, sadly.
I love getting downvotes for just understanding the law.
The vote is worthless outside of swing states. May as well vote your conscience when fptp and Electoral College enshrine disenfranchisement.
Because I live in one of the many many states were my vote doesn’t matter at all.
What’s the point of casting a worthless vote in favor of genocide?
People here act like we live in some kind of actual democracy lol.
The USA has several legally binding treaties etc promising military cooperation with Israel. Harris isn’t allowed to break them legally. Any change to this would have to be passed by the house and senate. So it genuinely doesn’t matter what Harris or anyone else wants.
Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?
https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
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.
The definition of genocide is actually extremely strict. Carpet bombing entire cities doesn’t actually count. It has to be a concerted effort to eradicate a people group or culture. Because the IDF has a stated objective of “getting rid of Hamas” and not “murdering all Palestinians” it’s impossible to prove the intent of their actions. If they were, for example stealing Palestinian babies and adopting them out to Israeli parents, ore forcing Palestinians to get Israeli passports, or forcing them to convert to Judaism at gunpoint, or sending people to reeducation camps, that would be a clear case of genocide. But extremely high civilian casualties genuinely doesn’t count no matter how brutal it is.
USAID already reported Israel is using hunger as a weapon. Which very much qualifies.
It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide. But again their involvement is largely preventing aid shipments from entering Gaza. They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country. There are people starving in Russia and Norway has closed the border. Is Norway committing a war crime? Also if that’s the case then why are people not jumping on Egypt? There’s a border crossing to Egypt as well. Is Egypt committing genocide?
Just to be clear, I don’t support either side in this conflict. And I do think the IDF are probably committing war crimes. 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.
No. They are absolutely not allowed to stop food and aid into the combat zone they created. They are absolutely not allowed to prevent Egypt from sending aid in. They are absolutely not allowed to conduct a naval blockade.
Russia is food secure and has trade access all along Central and East Asia. Norway’s closure is in no way the same thing.
When the professional aid distribution people who work for the United States Agency for International Development tell you it’s happening, then it’s happening.
It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide.
Okay… if its a war crime and not a genocide, that still qualifies as a way to stop sending weapons.
They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country.
Huh wonder if maybe Palestine should be legally recognized as a country to prevent this? Oh well, nothing we can do, since the politicians in power don’t want to do that.
But I don’t think that it can be proven especially seeing as the official government statistics coming out of gaza are provided by a group that is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation.
Every organization operating out of Gaza would get called a terrorist organization by Isreal. It is almost as if America is being intentionally obtuse to allow Isreal to carry out a genocide.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:
-
Killing members of the group
-
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
-
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part
-
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
-
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
A short list of official allegations of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians (Google):
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent the destruction of evidence and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel’s use of the “Hannibal Directive”
Israel has been accused of using its “Hannibal Directive” policy, which allows for the killing of Israeli soldiers and civilians to prevent them from being taken alive as prisoners of war. This policy has been criticized as a form of genocide.
UN reports
UN experts have reported “grave violations” committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, including “genocidal incitement” and the use of “powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts.” They have also cited evidence of Israel’s intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation.”
Special Rapporteur’s findings
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has found “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. She cited evidence of Israel’s intent to destroy the Palestinian group, including causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and preventing births within the group.
Amnesty International’s research
Amnesty International has gathered evidence of unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, resulting in mass civilian casualties. The organization has criticized Israel’s failure to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, leading to indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes.
Other reports and allegations
Various independent reports and allegations have been made about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including forced transfers, torture, and the destruction of infrastructure. Some have characterized Israel’s actions as genocide, while others have criticized the use of the term without sufficient evidence.
-
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.
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.
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
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
There is nothing more you can do to a people beyond killing and expelling nearly all of them.
nah trump is gonna suck at genocide he’s all talk
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.
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 anyone hasn’t already lost their Israel-colored glasses, they’re not coming off.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The US two-party system is a duopoly, so whichever party you vote for doesn’t matter. They are two sides of the same coin pretending to be opposites.
There is a clear and stark difference between the two current candidates and one of them is a convicted felon. This both-sides-ism is what will get that felon elected.
Nothing is perfect, the idea is to work toward a “more perfect union.” People seem to ignore that just so they can try to make a point while letting things burn down around them.
One of the most commonly repeated and least thought through statements in politics.
Unions stand a better chance of advocating before an NLRB board that has Democratic appointees. The FTC is going to do more to fight monopolies under a Democratic administration. The EPA is going to fight pfas and lithium mining.
And god almighty is it fucking frustrating to have to say this out loud in a serious conversation to adults, but Justice Elena Kagan makes meaningfully different decisions than Brett fuddrucking Kavanagh. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you can’t acknowledge things like this, I don’t know how to treat you like a serious person.
For instance, let’s just throw out everything other than the Supreme Court. To maintain the false equivalence, you have to say with a straight face that things like the Janus decision didn’t matter, or that overturning Roe vs Wade didn’t matter, or gutting the voting rights act didn’t matter, or getting rid of Chevron doesn’t matter. If you can make any of those arguments with a straight face, I won’t agree, but I’ll at least believe that you’ve actually thought this through.
For a single-issue anti-genocide voter, the US is a duopoly of bad choices. For most anyone else, absolutely correct.
The Roe v Wade decision and the Chevron decision literally happened under Biden, a democrat. Before you butter up the Democrats as the second coming of Christ, consider that the Democrats are literally in power and have been for the last four fucking years of hell. It’s not that those decisions don’t matter, it’s that the venn diagram of what your vote can possibly do, and the ways to reverse those decisions, it looks like this: O O
The great thing about this topic is this exact argument has already played out in a very recent historical example. You could, and many people did, make this exact argument in 2016, and it produced the very decisions we’re talking about. And now, evidently having not followed that thread of cause and effect at all, you’re back saying the same argument again.
It’s precisely because SCOTUS appointees lock in long term consequences that impact multiple future administrations that they are important, and a clear example of where differences in power lead to different outcomes.
This has always been the obvious weak spot in the “both sides are the same” argument. The only answer anybody has come up with is to constantly change the subject. Which is the tell.
