• SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    16 hours 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.

    • jailgenociders@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      A vote literally means she gets immunity for her complicity with genocide for the next 5 years. You can hardly get more unconditional.

    • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

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

    • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      12 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 hours 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 hours 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours 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. 🤷‍♀️

                • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 hours 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 hours 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.