530
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 25 points 8 months ago

They're using synpathy towards people suffering genocide to try and coral people to the polls. I've seen this before. What happened with Roe V Wade? Why are kids still in cages at the border? Why is minimum wage still so low?

Madam Vice President, too little has been done on issues that were previously promised. I cannot take these people at their word.

Want my vote? End support now. It's been a year of genocide with you at the right hand of Biden. All those lives lost happened on your watch. I will not be duped into voting for someone who has been complicit in commiting genocide, who is now promising to stop that same genocide because it happens to coincide with their political goals.

I will not support a genocide, on the promise of it being ended, only to wake up on January 21st just to hear 'Well, the situation is more complicated than just simply ending support, but I vow...!"

You've had a year to end it, and too little has been done to stop it. I will not vote for a genocidal candidate. I will not say that I support genocide by voting for these people. I will not be an accomplice.

It's sickening to think that they probably allowed the genocide to continue just to use it as a carrot to lead people to the ballot box, all the while lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.

Fuck off with your promises, you're in the White House now.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

Virtue signalling about genocide and letting the 'genocide to the max' guy win will show the Palestinian people how much you care for their plight.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

I didn't create the situation, I'm just reacting to it. Feel free to tell your kids and grandkids that, when given the choice, you actively supported a genocide.

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 20 points 8 months ago

You're actively supporting genocide.

It's very obvious to absolutely everyone that allowing Trump to win will produce the worst possible outcome for palestinians.

I honestly feel sorry for you. I think there's a strong possibility your own kids and grandkids will be asking you about this time in history, and I suspect you're going to realise in future how silly this "do x or I won't vote for you" position is.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

By virtue of birthplace, we are all supporting it. The only control I have in this situation is to not actively support the people who are saying they will give support to a genocidal regime. Also saying "Don't commit genocide or I won't vote for you" really should not be the controversial take that it's become.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The only control I have in this situation is stand by and implicitly support/not oppose the people who are saying they will genocide even harder abroad and bring the genocide home so I can keep my moral high ground.

[-] throbbing_banjo@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

You are both actively supporting and working to accelerate said genocide. Feel better?

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

I am already complicit by virtue of birthplace, that doesn't mean I have to take an active role in supporting the lesser evil.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Then you've chosen to support the greater evil.

You can hate the two party system all you want, but it's the reality we live in.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

It is the reality we live in, and I'm not happy about it as much as the next guy. I refuse to give my support to any candidate who is saying they'll support a genocidal regime. The rest is out of my control.

[-] Whattrees 8 points 8 months ago

Wrong. You are given some amount of control with your vote. You could choose to do something and are instead choosing to do nothing. You are choosing to abrogate your control.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

As voting is not required, I have not abrogated. I am doing something, I am using discretion to withhold support of genocidal candidates.

[-] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 33 points 8 months ago

"If I can't have zero genocide then I don't care to vote against the candidate that is very likely to be even worse."

Especially with only two candidates with a chance of winning, a vote doesn't mean unconditional support for everything that candidate wants. Sucks, but if you want to make your wishes known more specifically, you have to do more than just vote (if even that) and complain on the internet.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 8 months ago

They voted against both, dont be mad your candidate was so shit she couldnt clear a 'dont genocide' hurdle from a voter. Thats not either your faults or problems its Harris' problem.

[-] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 12 points 8 months ago

The current system (or voter inertia) doesn't allow you to vote against both. One of them will win, your only decision is which one you want (or despise less). If your vote doesn't threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you're voting for the winner.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 8 months ago

The current system (or voter inertia) doesn’t allow you to vote against both.

false premise.

One of them will win,

Yes.

your only decision is which one you want (or despise less).

false conclusion.

If your vote doesn’t threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you’re voting for the winner.

Man, you're a mental pretzel. please re-read your statement a few times. think really hard on what you just said. come back when you realize how that statement works both ways and is beautiful nonsense.

[-] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 12 points 8 months ago

You agreed that either Trump or Harris will win. Your vote can only threaten one of them, by voting for the other or an alternative candidate. Same with not voting, the winner won't care about your missing vote.

That means no action you take in the election will harm both candidates, ergo there is no way to vote against both of them.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That means no action you take in the election will harm both candidates, ergo there is no way to vote against both of them.

mmmm. does it though? you think the goal is to harm one of their campaigns. its not. the goal is to do two things:

  1. ensure when harris gets into office shes bloodied enough in the deep blue states to know she needs to work with bernie and ideally you know not commit a genocide.
  2. ensure if trump wins that the democrats control both houses.

you can read my post history. I've been very clear on this goal. its the only reason I'm wasting my time atm doing this along with other activities the last 4 months I'd really rather not be wasting my time with. like composing emails to my critters reminding them my vote for them is at risk if the genocide continues.

What amazes me is individuals like yourself won't even put an ounce of effort into helping Palestinians. just a few hours a day, lie to a few pollsters, email your critters, maybe vote 3rd party for president if you live in a deep blue state.

If harris campaign is harmed by this, well I can hardly be blamed. I didn't chose her policy positions. I certainly wouldn't have chosen genocide as a platform. but people do weird things. like mentally contorting themselves into a pretzel to support a genocidal candidate when not doing so is much easier. I hope you manage to find your way, but I doubt it. 🤷‍♀️

[-] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 4 points 8 months ago

I'm glad to see that you're doing more than just voting, which I was advocating for in the first post you answered.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

yes unfortunately you're advocating for the 2nd shittest outcome. a flat harris win, when you could be advocating for a squeaker that leaves her position tenuous and her leadership within the dem party weak. please start lieing to your critters, exit polls, etc, and if possible vote against her in deep blue states.

[-] reliv3@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

You realize that you're currently being con'd. Netanyahu wants Trump to win the presidential election, because he knows Trump will be friendly towards his genocidal actions. Netanyahu is doing everything in his power to extend this genocide so that he can stay in power; and so that he can keep single issue voters like you away from the polls.

Netanyahu knows that if he ended Israel's genocide before the election, the Biden administration would receive credit in playing a role in mediating the conflict. This would likely assure a Harris victory. By escalating the conflct, he is assisting Trump. Why would you think that this genocidal maniac is doing this?

So here you are, the single issue voter that is tuning out all of the other important issues. For example, Trump considers communist (all you genius tankies) some of the biggest enemies in the USA; or how Trump backers and policymakers wants to remove women's right to make decisions about their bodies.

Do I believe that Biden/Harris has done enough to help Palestinians? The answer is no. Do I believe Biden/Harris feels like Netanyahu and the Israeli government are in the wrong? Yes. Do I believe Trump feels like Israel is in the wrong? No.

So even if this is your single issue, as an American living thousands of miles from Israel, your best way to assist Palestinians right now is to put someone in the Whitehouse who at least views them as human-beings. By not voting or voting third-party, you're not helping anyone but yourself. You are doing it so you don't need to "feel bad" about crossing some morale boundary.

Listen man, if that's the route you want to go, then fine. But I'm gonna go ahead and waltz my sorry butt to the polls and cast my vote for the person who will more likely do something to assist Palestinians even if I feel like I'm crossing a moral boundary. Am I gonna feel good doing it? No. But it's the better decision to make, especially considering all the other important issues that surround this election beyond the Palestinian genocide.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago

Wall of text nonsense. If trump wins thats Harris' fault not mine. She's run a shit campaign and alienated the left thinking she can dislodged voters feom trump, thats her decision.

Bibi has no bearing on this. Hes happy as a clam either way.

And gaza is just the issue im using here i have a laundry list of problems with harris. Its the easiest to explain and easiest to build support for.

Finally if you think voting for harris in a 20+ dem state is going to help trump win you're full of shit. The best way we can fuck bibi is by getting harris to about face on israel and the best way to do that is nose dive her support in deep blue states. She'll still win but her credibility with congressional reps wont hold water.

[-] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 4 points 8 months ago

I'm advocating for the outcome where the candidate that doesn't want to jail their opponents and use the military against protestors wins, so that you can continue to make your disagreement with parts of their policy known.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

Same friend same. Im just increasing the likelihood that policy does change.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

If I can’t have zero genocide

Look at where we are.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

The unfortunate thing is we can't have zero genocide. I just don't want to be complicit in supporting it. I didn't create this situation or these choices, I'm just responding to them.

[-] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

Not voting would make you complicit in making it worse if Trump wins. Doing nothing is still a move.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

The genocide is going to happen either way, as both candidates are in favor of it. The only choice I have in the matter is whether to to support those candidates with my vote or not. I am complicit by virtue of birthplace, that doesn't mean I have to actively support it by helping the lesser evil further their political goals.

[-] zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You're not helping tankies defeat the allegations that they're braindead...

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

I never claimed to be a tankie, so allegations against them hold no weight with me.

[-] Waldowal@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

Good plan dude. Trump to the rescue.

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago

I don't think anyone thinks trump is going to rescue anything.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago

Oh okay, then you're voting for Harris, right?

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

The lady in favor of continuing to support a genocidal regime? No.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago

Ahh yes, of course, of course, so Trump to the rescue then right?

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Pretty sure we just had this conversation. Would you like me to copy and paste my previous response?

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago

Mmm, I see, I see, so you're voting for the only other person who could possibly win this election, Kamala Harris, right?

[-] halykthered@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

See my previous response.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Buddy. It's more genocide or less genocide, courtesy of the voting atrocity that is first past the post:

Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

We all hate that choice. And as the video shows, voting third party truly, truly is a vote for "more genocide". It's terrible.

This is a tale of dorky obscure voting technicalities killing the potential for third parties, with the worst imaginable side effects in Gaza, and if you want to eliminate those side effects, you do it by playing where the action is: get ranked choice passed. Sort of like how a horrific, torturing skin disease might be beaten by some nerd with a bunch of diagrams about chemistry.

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
530 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24613 readers
2886 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS