America voting for the lesser evil since 1792.
It’s not the time to stop now. But I better see all of you on the streets with signs on November 6th.
For real.
Today, massive supporter for Harris.
Post-election, I shall go back to being a massive critic.
Shitty situation all around. Once heard politics are like public transportation. Won’t give me a door-to-door ride to the destination I’m aiming for, so I’ll take it to get as close as possible.
Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron. Trump may be even more pro Israel…
We know that Harris will let the zionists do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, no matter what it costs the US. Your saying theres much difference between that and whatever Trump plans is dumb. Is Trump going to double kill people and double steal their land?
Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron
I think war crimes surrogates are worse than morons.
You really think there’s a complete carte blanche from either the current administration or will likely be under Harris? Don’t get me wrong. Israel has gone way overboard, but me assure you it could be a lot worse.
Infact, the actions of Trump during his administration included moving the US embassy in an extremely controversial move and even the war criminal Netanyahu meets Trump personally - when he is not even President.
Are you saying that taking action like not voting for Harris, which will help enable a Trump victory, is the correct course of action to reduce Palestinian and Lebanese suffering? Your approach doesn’t make any sense if your goal is to reduce suffering.
Gaza is hardly even an issue on the ballot, you’re picking between slow genocide and fast genocide.
Slow genocide is better though. We all get that right?
Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.
Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.
The time to do something about it is during an election. Politicians couldnt care less what you think after they have your vote. They dont need your money.
If there was a part of the election to do something about it that time was the Primaries. The primaries that only like 30M people vote in every election. Right now your choices are between death and more death but also closer to home.
99 more years at the current rate.
Slow genocide is better
Bernie is such a good guy. The Dems have done him dirty so many times, they are currently continuing to support many harmful policies but he understands what’s at stake and he puts all of that aside to do the best he can.
He doesn’t have to do this. He’s 83 years old and while his cognitive health is outstanding for his age, someone his age doesn’t need to be on this grind for us. He probably won’t stop until he’s forced to due to his health. I love the guy and it’s a shame we weren’t given the chance to see him take the presidency.
He is a leader.
I remember that old footage of him in Burlington in the 70’s, talking to random kids in the mall, asking them what was important to them–drug policy, free speech, good schools–and just talking to them about how they could make a difference. From the bully pulpit, he would have been transformative.
Agree 100%, but he’s not a god. He can be wrong, same as everyone else. I think he played this wrong.
Love you Bernie, but get bent.
That’s a bad headline. Watch his video, he makes a much more nuanced argument.
The fantasy world the zero-tolerance high-ground morality angels live in is as dangerous as the one MAGA lives in, and ironically has the same victims. They proudly polish their halos nice and shiny while they let the world burn.
Don’t support genocide, it’s as simple as that!
By the way: Voting isn’t actually support. The American system is not set up in a way where votes actually add to the power of the Presidential office. On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action, which could be genocide. This means YOU HAVE TO VOTE HARRIS IN ORDER TO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. The socialism angels are hypocrites.
I see what you’re trying to do drag but it just doesn’t track.
there are two facts about this election
- there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
- both candidates have a bad stance on the genocide
so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?
my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have… which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
Harris might be responsive, and let’s be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it’s definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?
which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
i only voted for kamala because she’s a woman and even though she’s an awful candidate at least we can get it out of our collective system, show little girls they can be president, and the neoliberal status quo is probably still better than Trump
i’m not entirely sure on that because I think Kamala is more likely to lead us into a war with Russia… but Trump is more volatile in general I think
Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing. there’s been so many women throughout history that could have been judith pulgars, politically speaking, and ended up getting pushed into more subservient positions
that’s the main reason. i dont think that’s an awful reason
as for the russian war thing, i rather like living in a pre-nuclear-war society.
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing.
I agree with that, and its long overdue, but if she fumbles badly she may set everything backward.
It just implies that looking at the candidates the biggest and most important difference you see is that one is a woman.
Like, it’s great that you did vote for that woman as she also happens to be in favour of women having rights, lgbtq+ people having rights, doesn’t want mass deportions, still wants there to be elections in the future and a painfully long list of stark differences like that. It’s just impressive that none of that mattered to you, or that you are unaware of it
i’m more cynical about her. it’s not that i don’t think gay rights and women rights aren’t important. they are. but to me, the primary issues i care about, in order of importance
a) probability of war
b) attitude towards immigrants
c) economic position
d) foreign policy in general
so for example I think Kamala is probably more likely to get us into war than Trump is. That gives points to Trump.
on the immigration front, I don’t have any illusions about where the national conversation is going. I was brought here to this country illegally as a small child. I grew up here illegal and it wasn’t until my early 20s that I managed to naturalize
so i’ve been embedded in immigrant communities, with a lot of illegals sprinkled in, and have been paying attention to immigration news for virtually all of life
i can only think of two politicians who have done something meaningful for illegals. Reagan and Obama. Reagan of course gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Obama enacted the DACA policy, which wasn’t nearly as broad as amnesty, but it was definitely a good thing that helped hundreds of thousands of people. but “immigration reform” has been promised my whole life by DNC and never delivered. best was the half-assed DACA
But let’s look at rhetoric from Biden. During campaign in 2020 he advocated for a “compassionate approach” and was “pushing for immigration reform”. he promised to halt the construction of “the Wall tm”
What about the last couple years? He expanded construction of the wall which he timed with a photoshoot with Customs and Border Patrol at the southern border. He also went on TV and started using the word illegal - which is a term Democrats historically haven’t used. I don’t think it’s offensive or anything- but it’s telling to show how the overton window has sharply been shoved to the right
Now look at Biden’s successor - Kamala - the woman I voted for begrudgingly. go to her website and look at the policies and you will see zilch about compassionate approach or immigration reform. today it’s “security and strong border”
right now over 65% of all Americans (not just GOP) support deporting all illegal immigrants. Something absurd to say even a decade ago. Majority of Americans support a policy which would effectively have the military going around house to house in order to put over 10 million people in camps, which they would stay at for years while the government tries to figure out the complex and expensive logistical challenge of moving millions of people out of the country (Germans had this same problem back in first half of the 1900s. they came up with a controversial solution to that question, of course)
so i’m not saying kamala is equal or worse than trump on this. trump is partly at fault for the rise in this change. but i think long term it won’t make a difference who wins in this field. either way immigrants are screwed, so it doesn’t really matter to me in this election
economic position, i think not gonna matter much. the whole “tax breaks for first time homeowners” from Kamala is yet another bailout to the banks at the expense of regular people. Trump put in sanctions on China, raising prices for Americans… Biden kept them in place and put some more. I don’t think this is much different. the reductionist “tax the rich” is a nice slogan but without meaning. as long as the government has a money tap funneling public money to leeches, no amount of taxes will ever filter down to help the working class
foreign policy in general. again, i don’t see much of a difference. china from above is a good example. iran is another. Obama actually came up with a revolutionary deal- bringing the Iranians back into the fold. Trump torpedoed that deal in spectacular fashion and then moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. Biden maintained the “get fucked” attitude towards Iran and went to Tel Aviv in Oct of last year to bend the knee to Netanyahu.
so to summarize
for the issues i mentioned, which are the ones that matter to me, i think long term the choice of candidate isn’t going to influence anything significantly either way. the zietgiest is headed in a certain direction and i don’t think either candidate has the capacity or willingness to meaningfully change the course of things
so then we get to why did i vote for kamala. because I think it’ll be inspiring to girls and women across the country. it’ll implicitly let them know they are equal and are able to accomplish anything, even the highest office in the country
i think that alone is worth voting for her. and of course Trump is a bit of a wild card and I prefer stability.
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
This level of cynicism is unwarranted. Sure it might be low, but for Harris it’s at least 0.1%.
with the current stranglehold the pro-Israeli lobby has on American politics (includes both GOP and DNC) even 0.1% is a stretch
AIPAC even brags about it: https://aipacorg.app.box.com/s/t8vvqt7evxvgkzn5jktpwejate6oxo0y
98% of AIPAC endorsed candidates won their election in 2022. if you are a politician and you say something mildly critical of Israel they will go to war with you and do everything so that your opponent wins
Israel has figured out how to hack American democracy. There is no going back at this point. We are a pro-Israel country for the foreseeable future, regardless of which candidate wins this election or the next one or the next one
My argument is that the only good american is that dude who set himself on fire. You are a scumbag. You are no better than a german in the 30ies smelling the grilled flesh and thinking “this is fine, it’s still better than bolchevism”
lol I’m not an American, go Bolshevik yourself
You think you are not
you’re going dumber with every comment.
You are americanized, what can I say? You are either german, british or from a commonwealth country. I’m betting my left balls.
If you aren’t even American then shut the fuck up. You don’t really grasp how complex the politics actually are.
They’re really not though. You literally have two options and one is so obviously worse
We do understand it pretty well. Sincerely, an ex-Hungarian.
Removed by mod
Nobody cares about your internal politics. Your external politics is always the same and seeing all of you idiots saying “BOTH SIDE ARE FOR GENOCIDE” leads to the conclusion you people have zero ethical consideration at all. You know, since you are overtly voting for extermination… again.
Fuck off
If there’s anybody this election cycle shows us, it’s that americans do not care about foreigners life at all. They would gladly throw entire countries under the bus if it means that they get to keep living their comfortable life putting their little ballot like cowards instead of actually fighting fascism.
Voting isn’t actually support
On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action
Interesting. So, by drag’s logic, a Trump voter isn’t responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.
It’s amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y’all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.
What they think their vote contributes to:
Fuck off drag. The US dems are guilty of extermination and everybody who vote in this election are complicit. You can call them to throw foreigners under the bus for their own gain and security, since they are bullying people to vote for the genocide party just because the other side said they were gonna be worst.
When somebody commit a crime, you punish this person, you dont give them power because some other dude talked shit.
Don’t support genocide, it’s as simple as that!
Just say whatever the fuck you want while you do whatever the fuck you want, it’s as simple as that!
Then do not call to vote for the exact people who committed it.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-made-weapons-used-by-government-of-israel-in-violation-of-international-law-and-u-s-law/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091
First of all, at this point people in the US should vote against Trump for their safety, and that means in the current political system they have to vote for Harris. That’s the reality they have to face. The Trump party has made fascist announcements that are real and people should expect them to be made into real actions.
The problem is that the Democrats frankly have abysmal messaging and are drifting to the right further and further while using Trump as a threat to their voters. They adopt anti-immigrant policies and are distancing themselves from pro-LGBT stances, saying it’s the states decision. Both these issues as well as demands for a ceasefire poll exceptionally well, but the Harris campaign seemingly don’t want the edge. With all this they are signaling that right wing worries about immigrants and trans people are valid, although that’s absolutely not the case, and leave people to decide for example “do I want anti-immigrant light or extra harsh anti-immigrant?” when everybody says immigrants are an issue. This is unacceptably stupid and risking the vote. And that’s ignoring the elephant in the room that progressive policy like health care is exceptionally popular and using that as counter messaging would win her voters.
We’ve seen how popular the Democrats got after Harris took over and Walz got nominated. It signaled change. Now all the Democrats say that it’s gonna be the same old as usual treading on and the same bad argument vote us or you’ll get a dictatorship. I’m not denying Biden dropping out had nothing to do with the surge of popularity, but back then we also had comments like here, basically declaring any dissent from supporting a decrepit old man as the candidate as heresy. Now there are again, only Yes men here saying if you criticize Harris you’re a bot or a Trump ass eater. What is wrong with you?
Finally, I have the creeping suspicion that Democratic establishment people don’t fear a fascist Trump administration themselves personally as much as the population has to. Trump announces he will go after his enemies, Latinos and trans people (probably all queer people actually). He has anti women’s health and rights messaging all over his campaign. But that doesn’t seem to be a risk for people higher up in the party. I suspect that when you’re rich you don’t have to worry about abortion bans or HRT access. And if Trump threatens them with violence they always have money they can throw at him. It’s much more comfortable to run a risky neo liberal and right wing platform against a fascist if you can jump ship later on.
I was a Bernie-or-Bust-er in 2016 because I was confident Hilary was going to win with or without my vote. I deeply regret taking that stance and feel like I let down every woman who’s lost rights to their bodily autonomy, every family who was separated at the border, everybody whose life was lost or ruined due to the Trump administration’s incompetent response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and everybody else who has been harmed by the Trump administration.
Don’t be like me. It sucks having to vote for the lesser of two evils but that’s how our system works and not voting or voting third-party isn’t going to change that but it does run the risk of things getting a lot worse.
Can I ask what state you were voting from in 2016?
TX at the time. Generally regarded as solidly red. However, looking at the numbers in '16 and '20, I wouldn’t be surprised if everybody in the state who had either voted third-party or not at all because of the belief that their vote wouldn’t make a difference would have indeed been enough to potentially flip the state.
I’m hoping this will be the year we see Texas flip blue. That would be beautiful.
The problem of the US is that you might lose more voters by dumping Israel than you’d gain by supporting Palestine.
No one actually votes with Gaza or Isreal as a core issue outside of NYC, and the state is eternally blue no matter what.
For better or worse the majority of America doesn’t even acknowledge(or even care) the conflict as an issue outside of the terminally online.
Is there actual polling to that effect?
There are some polls that show roughly 35 to 60 percent of US voters backing the sale of arms to Israel, depending on demographics, but there is a very clear divide between Republican and Democrat support so it’s disingenuous to say a candidate will lose more support than they gain because that depends on which candidate.
A lot of these polls also use loaded questions like “who is responsible for this conflict” with the two choices being Hamas and Israel, which doesn’t really capture any of the nuance of the situation or represent the beliefs of the person answering the question.
I dont have them on hand, but I’ve seen a few polls in swing states where 5 or so percent more undecided voters would be more likely to vote for Harris if she promised an arms embargo, as opposed to less likely.
Protest voting doesn’t work when the candidate you are protesting is the least worst option. Democrats that will not vote out of principle have been conned as badly as MAGA republicans. End of story.
I think you might be on to something. Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting? I mean, it does deliver two right-of-centre parties to power, over and over again.
Where the wheels are coming off is that one of them - and some people say both - are moving further rightwards, and this is destabilising society in America.
Pretend you’re a politician. You have two groups of people that want opposite things. One of them is reliable, donates and volunteers to help your campaign. The other is feckless and seems to always find an excuse to oppose you. Which would you try to please?
What exact issue do you disagree with from the feckless ones? What made it so hard?
You’re not doing a very good job of pretending to be a politician if that’s your answer.
so you can’t point a single instance. got it. sounds like your hypothetical politician was an asshole not worthy of the job.
Some people say… Dems are generally shit but they have definitely moved left over the last decade. A lot of new people have run and while it isn’t a sure thing by any stretch, people have been able to and have the chance to continue to move the party and also just straight up infiltrate it to push it left. Whereas the repubs have been in full sprint to the right.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
It absolutely is set up that way. This may or may not have been the intent of our election system, but it is the outcome.
I think there may be some conflict in the interpretation of “set up”. When you say it was “absolutely” set up that way, keep in mind that many if not most would interpret “set up” to definitively include intent.
Washington himself warned of the dangers of a 2 party system…
He warned about parties themselves.
Fair distinction.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
Not everything is some conspiracy to keep you down. The people who wrote the constitution just weren’t perfect and had to make political compromises, which resulted in an imperfect system.
Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.
The dynamic was understood, it just wasn’t formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren’t in use though, and probably wouldn’t even have been practical without automation.
Are you American?
I hope he is not. At least he wont rot in hell.
Young people don’t get involved in the system and don’t vote, nothing special about the US on that level, so it’s not surprising their priorities aren’t the priorities of the political options.
Unfortunately Gaza is a non issue. The situation would only be handled worse under the other candidate. Along with just about every other conceivable thing.
Once you are under dictatorship, you can’t vote to hold anyone accountable. Vote for Trump and you won’t have a say in what happens to Gaza. Or anything else.
yea, but you get to brag to all the other inmates in the political prison yard that you stood up for your principles by not voting!
They’ll be in the same political prisons as their primary enemies, the classic liberal Dems.
Am I allowed physical violence to the purported leftist idiots who land us there? I’ll piss on their cracked skulls while reminding them we have the same values but I’m practical and trying to survive to fight for them.
LOL i can’t wait to get in fistfights with them
Fuck the fist fights, I’ll be playing human shield with their corpses while I sneak out in the cadaver wagon.
Oh Lemmy. Don’t ever change ❤️
I’m not as enthused as you to vote for a system where innocent civilians have to die for political convenience, sorry. My morals say that killing is wrong, and I don’t like it.
LOL you guys never fail to illustrate my point in less than 5 minutes
If your point is “some people think that killing is wrong”, feel free to consider your point proven.
His point is that some people think killing is so wrong that they’ll actively advocate for a course of action that will kill waaaaay more people.
You value your own moral purity over the lives of other people.
That’s his point.
It’s the trolley problem:
You have Gaza on one set of tracks
On the other, you have Gaza, Ukraine, and potentially a whole lot of other stuff including anyone that’s ever registered Democrat (they’ll be able to pry voter registrations and if they do make good on building big-ass detention facilities one doesn’t need to be all that creative to imagine what they might eventually use them for)
I don’t really wanna know what’s on that other set of tracks
Removed by mod
Damn, way to miss the mark 🤣🤣🤣
You’re choosing between “lots of people being killed” vs “LOOOOOOTTTTTSSSS of people being killed”
Based on your own morality you have outlined, ethically you would choose to vote Kamala then, as under her far far fewer people will die.
Removed by mod
No demon at all has created it; other humans have. You aren’t the sole person responsible for responding to it, but your actions will contribute to what happens next, non-action included.
You can say that this kind of situation implies someone else has done something wrong, leaving you holding the bag, and you’d be right, if nobody had done something wrong, we wouldn’t have a genocide to talk about in the first place- but saying that leaving you holding the moral bag was a wrong thing to do doesn’t change the fact that you are now holding that bag, along with all the rest of us. And about half of us (referring to the people of the US as a whole), if you haven’t noticed, have every desire of causing even more harm. “Neither” is simply not an option when failing to choose the least bad thing will result in someone else choosing the worse one. It’s not fair, it’s repulsive even, but the universe does not work in such a way as to ensure only fair moral choices exist. Morality is a thing we invented, the world doesn’t care about conforming to it.
Getting the best outcome you have with the bad options presented you matters more than whether or not you feel your own personal hands are clean- because metaphorically clean hands will not save the people of Palestine, and likely would doom some, and others elsewhere, that could have been saved. A clean feeling conscience bought by leaving people you could have helped to die is little more than a delusion of innocence.
What do you think about China’s Uighur genocide?
There is no genocide that I agree with.
Removed by mod
I’m voting so the state doesn’t kill my sister if she has complications in her pregnancy.
That is good. I would also like to be able to vote so the state doesn’t send weapons to enable one country to kill innocent people in another. Some of those people dying are sisters, and their siblings feel much like you might when they are without them.
I’d like to do that too, but sadly that’s not on the ballot this year.
Only way I see our way out of these situations in the future is ranked choice vote and abolish the electoral college so 3rd party candidates are actually viable. I’ve been donating to fairvote.org and joined the forward party for that reason, but in the meantime I can only help damage control while I wait for the calvary of rcv.
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide.”
Removed by mod
Thanks, as a person with a trans gender identity, this really helps me to understand that nothing will change, because fear and oppression will be utilised to force people to rationalise harmful actions as inevitable.
A trans gender identity? That sounds like a broken English interpretation.
It’s a fucky word construction, but it’s correct and in wide use. Transgender and trans are different concepts. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Hey, I’m autistic, queer, and an immigrant. You can hate me if you want, plenty of people do.
My gender identity is trans. I’m also ethnically Ukrainian. Feel free to assume I’m Russian because I’m different to you. That’s what human society does, create ougroups and scapegoat them. I try to avoid doing it, which makes me an enemy of those who do, because I say impossible things like “can we not kill innocent people?” For practical purposes, that will not happen, and asking for it is naive.
I know that. But, although impractical and naive, that does not stop it from being the morally correct outcome. My autism shows itself in a very strong sense of justice, and I find justice to be more important than practicality.
How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn’t magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don’t hate you either. I can’t say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn’t you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?
as a person with a trans gender identity
I’m gonna go ahead and stop you right there chief. Transgender people don’t write “transgender” as two words. Big “as a black man” energy here, cishet loser.
Our posting buddy’s fucky word construction is correct and in wide use. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Also, if you’re still reading, please also add to your lexicon the absolute gift that is “cissie.”
As a non-binary person who is under the trans gender umbrella, without being transgender in the sense of having transitioned across genders, I am careful with my language. I am not transgender in the way people typically understand.
Feel free to participate in non-binary erasure, I’m used to it. Humans love creating outgroups so they can bully each other, that is why I find myself not labelling myself as human. I think gender is stupid, and I think humans are rude.
just STFU already
Not voting is a choice as well. A choice that will make it so that your voice will not have an impact on whether the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less. Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care about those whose lives are being threatened, the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
A great Canadian philosopher once said “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!”
It’s really not hard to rush to the polls
Honestly my ideology on it is the same as my parents and my grandparents, and even my great grandparents ideology.
I don’t care who you vote for, what you vote for, or your reasoning’s for doing do.
But if you refuse to vote, regardless of reason, you lose any say in complaining about what happens as a result, as you actively did nothing to help prevent it, meaning you have no right to bitch about the outcome.
the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less
The most infuriating thing about you nazi motherfuckers is you still have the fucking gall to believe you’re better than the other side
Not voting is a choice as well.
Yes, but I don’t have any other choice, myself.
Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care
No, it’s an announcement that I care so much about innocent people dying that I am morally conflicted about being asked to be part of a political system which condones it.
asked to be part of a political system
But, you’re not being asked. You already are. You don’t get to pretend you’re not, just because you didn’t give your permission. This isn’t an opt-in situation.
And I get that maybe you feel that isn’t fair, and I agree it isn’t. Just like none of us asked to be born, none of us asked to be part of society either. But we are, and we have to deal with that now.
They don’t have a choice, because Samvega is not an American citizen. They are a troll and they only thing they do is say the same exact comments in every post. Don’t bother engaging with them.
Even a non American citizen has a choice in this. If they aren’t American, they can’t vote, but people that can vote can be influenced by the words of others (otherwise, such trolls wouldn’t exist, after all, they’d have no point), and someone outside the country can still choose what to say.
I’m not really convinced that foreign operations are terribly active on a platform this small, or that these people truly are such an operation, but if for the sake of argument they are, and the user in question happens to be one, I’m not sure that non-engagement actually helps. “Don’t feed the trolls” is standard advice for dealing with traditional trolls, that are just out to make people mad and will move on if ignored. But a person being paid to shape the narrative isn’t going to just get bored and quit, they’re going to keep doing what they’re paid to do, and people are at some level influenced to align with ideas that they think are popular among the people around them, so letting them make a bunch of uncontested arguments still lets them shape a narrative through volume.
On a platform like this, that doesn’t have engagement algorithms that will boost the words of someone you interact with, I feel that it makes more sense to drown out trolls of the foreign kind, so that others who see them get the impression that what they say is not popular. One just has to keep in mind, if one truly believes that one is arguing with such a person, that your goal in arguing is no longer either to refine your ideas or convince the other person of yours, but to convince other people who see the argument of them.
It doesn’t take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.
This isn’t about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I’m going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.
If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it
How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.
but I live in the reality of the viable options
Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve ‘innocent people are dying right now’. This bothers me.
If it’s the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say “The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse”. You’re saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?
Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.
Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
Racist yank cares about american life first. But they are very different than MAGAs /s
My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can’t radically accept the world and your life, it’s going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.
There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it’s entirely appropriate to be angry that isn’t an option, but it isn’t the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn’t available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn’t been that black and white for a long time.
You could do it like the brave soldier who did self-immolation. If I was american I would
I prefer action , or even just talking, over pointless gestures.
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
I cannot cast a vote in this election.
Not sure why you’re acting like you can vote on this in the first place
I’m acting like someone who is saying that they do not accept killing innocent people as a viable part of a political process that will make the human world better.
So you want more death, got it. Abstaining from voting for the lesser evil is a choice, and you’ve made it. Blocked.
“In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” - Trump
Right so people should vote Green to hold Harris accountable while they still can.
Exactly! Because when she loses and Trump wins… Hey… Wait a second…
Darn you are correct. We should not hold politicians accountable after all. Please downvote the person above me who suggested it.
We can always hold “we’ll organize and push her left after the election” people accountable. If they’re honest, then more people will organize, big win. If they’re not, then they’ll be so ashamed that they make new accounts.
Removed by mod
Not voting for a candidate is not the only, nor the most effective way to push a party to change positions on an issue you care about.
Removed by mod
War in Gaza… Is Bernie still doing genocide denial?
He can’t be using the word “Genocide” specifically, because the international court and UN as well as many very old documents allow 3rd party intervention to stop a genocide, meaning by saying that exact word he would be advocating the invasion of an allied nation which is grounds for expulsion from the senate. I’m sure the 49 Republicans and a couple Dems would love to throw his ass out if a vote came up.
Anybody who wants Bernie to use the word Genocide just wants a Republican Senate Majority, doesn’t care about Gaza, stop faking asshole.
word he would be advocating the invasion of an allied nation which is grounds for expulsion from the senate
Citation needed. AFAIK, the Senate is allowed to discuss whether a nation should be considered an ally, and whether or not to invade a sovereign nation.
Or did you mean he would be “recalled” (by his constituents) rather than “expelled” (by his fellow senators)?
There is no real law or regulation for when the house or senate expels one of their own, though 17 people have been expelled historically, but there was recent talks of expelling Tlaib for using the word Genocide in May. Or did you want a citation for Genocide being acceptable cause to invade as it relates to the United Nations and International Law?
Tlaib wasn’t censured for using the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions toward Palestinians. She was censured for repeating the slogan “from the river to the sea”, which has been described as “nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews”.
She was only censured because a sufficient number of Democrats agreed with Republicans to issue a censure. None of those Democrats would support a Republican call for her expulsion.
My point is that Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants to. He’s free to call for American military intervention against Israel if he wants to.
There is a huge constitutional issue with the expulsion of a legislator for making a statement that is well within the scope of their constitutional duties.
I don’t need evidence of genocide being considered justification to intervene. I readily concede that point. My concern here is the constitutional issue that would arise if a legislator is effectively prohibited from representing their constituency, including a constituency that thinks Israel is engaged in Genocide.
You’re out of touch with reality if you think Bernie will get nothing more than a stern talking to for asking for a foreign force to invade Israel. I get it, dude, I really do: I think the USA should depose Netanyahu and take control of the situation themselves, honestly, but support for Palestine is not universal and is in short supply in the US Congress.
He certainly will face severe consequences: from his constituents. They could recall him, or replace him in the next election. He faces consequences from the Democratic party: they can refuse to support his re-election.
He faces serious consequences from the people he represents, but not from the Senate or the federal government.
Censure is nothing. It carries no penalty. Democratic support for Tlaib’s censure was easy to give because it carried no actual cost. There is no way that Democratic support for censure would translate to support for her expulsion. A legislator who isn’t facing censure just isn’t trying hard enough.
Bernie is free to call it a genocide if he wants. The fact that he isn’t (ostensibly) tells us that his constituency doesn’t want him to do that.
Your opinions don’t represent reality.
She was then immediately threatened with expulsion with a quickly passing Censure Vote 234-188
https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-censure-resolution-tlaib-8085189047a4c40f2d44ada4604aa076
A censure vote has no practical effect but certainly sends a strong message of disapproval.
And for what, btw? Bernie has opposed arms to Israel at every turn, what difference does word choice make?
Your link says she was censured not for using the term “genocide”, but for repeating the slogan “from the river to the sea”. Your article quotes Representative Brad Schneider (D, Illinois) as describing as “nothing else but the call for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews”.
Did he? My memory is jumbled. It has Bernie full steam ahead defending genocide for at least three months
If you watch the video they cite he clearly does call for a ceasefire, and furthermore says, as is practically his catchphrase since a year ago, that "Israel has a right to defend itself and go after hamas but it does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people."
I don’t know how you could misconstrue that as defending genocide in any way, shape, or form but if you are against his explicit stance in this case then you want war to continue and more civilians to die, so fuck you I guess.
For a year now he has been the biggest voice in “not sending Netanyahu another penny” unless proof that Palestinian human rights are upheld and aid is brought into the nation, which sadly has not been the policy stance of the majority of congress.
Back then: “This will ensure we never tolerate genocide again!”
Now: mandatory genocide denial
The pure irony of shaming the people working the hardest to stop genocide by calling them complicit in genocide.
Is it complacency if he’s forced to either deny genocide or lose his position to stop it?
Losing his position does the opposite of stop it. That’s the problem.
Right, so why would anyone call him complicit?
Perhaps because of people like you intentionally framing the question of complicity wrong?
