Support from some Pennsylvania Muslim leaders for Josh Shapiro has revealed rifts within the community and highlighted Muslim and Arab-American voters’ desire to center Palestinian rights this election.
Sure, lines must be drawn. The problem is that one of the candidates is openly friendly with white-supremists and likes to encourage them to take action without getting his own hands dirty. If this election opens the doors for openly killing anyone of color (you know, even more so than it is now), then we’re really taking a big step backwards and have no hope at all of pressuring our government to start making things right in other countries too. From my perspective, both parties are going to continue this genocide in Pakistan for as long as they can, and if we open the doors to domestic terrorism then none of us have any hope of trying to encourage foreign policy changes.
What’s your solution for the problem? Voting for someone who doesn’t have any chance of getting elected? Or would you rather vote for Trump, who is encouraging complete annihilation of the Gaza strip by Israel to end the conflict overnight, while also vowing to end all support for Ukraine and back Russia in a second genocide? Personally I’m going to cast my vote for a candidate who can prevent Trump from getting back in office again, where there might be a slight chance of pressuring some change in Israeli policy. Unless you can somehow convince 300million Americans to vote 3rd party in the next three months, no other choice has any possibility of helping anyone, and fewer votes against Trump risks a much larger number of people being killed directly by US policy.
Where do YOU draw the line when there’s no way to win no matter how you vote? I draw the line at trying to reduce the number of casualties first through my vote, and then seeing if there’s any way to move forward to make things better.
That’s not really a valid question since it would never happen. Like Trump specifically, the US will always try to keep its hands clean of such actions. Yeah we’ll send them nukes all day long, but we’re not “responsible” because we didn’t actually launch them. However Harris sanctioning a strike on Gaza is nothing different than Trump has already stated, so a vote for either candidate wouldn’t change that outcome. On the other hand, Trump absolutely has done far more damage domestically, and promised to do even worse if he gets elected again, so I’m still in the party of “anyone but Trump”.
It’s not a simple question, I would have to know the circumstances that lead to such a drastic situation, who was running against her, and what realistic chance any 3rd-party candidate had of getting the votes from others. The reality is that it’s not something that is ever going to occur because even Trump isn’t senile enough to forget that such an action would incur the wrath of other NATO members. You can play what-if games all day long, but unless you create an entire imaginary world to go with your implausible scenario, you’re not going to get any legitimate answers.
Sure, lines must be drawn. The problem is that one of the candidates is openly friendly with white-supremists and likes to encourage them to take action without getting his own hands dirty. If this election opens the doors for openly killing anyone of color (you know, even more so than it is now), then we’re really taking a big step backwards and have no hope at all of pressuring our government to start making things right in other countries too. From my perspective, both parties are going to continue this genocide in Pakistan for as long as they can, and if we open the doors to domestic terrorism then none of us have any hope of trying to encourage foreign policy changes.
So if genocide is not the red line, at what point would you stop voting Democrat?
What’s your solution for the problem? Voting for someone who doesn’t have any chance of getting elected? Or would you rather vote for Trump, who is encouraging complete annihilation of the Gaza strip by Israel to end the conflict overnight, while also vowing to end all support for Ukraine and back Russia in a second genocide? Personally I’m going to cast my vote for a candidate who can prevent Trump from getting back in office again, where there might be a slight chance of pressuring some change in Israeli policy. Unless you can somehow convince 300million Americans to vote 3rd party in the next three months, no other choice has any possibility of helping anyone, and fewer votes against Trump risks a much larger number of people being killed directly by US policy.
Where do YOU draw the line when there’s no way to win no matter how you vote? I draw the line at trying to reduce the number of casualties first through my vote, and then seeing if there’s any way to move forward to make things better.
People need to draw a line somewhere at which point the scale tips over because people refuse to vote for any of the two parties.
My previous question is the answer to your current question. If Kamala Harris promises to nuke Gaza would that prevent you from voting for her?
That’s not really a valid question since it would never happen. Like Trump specifically, the US will always try to keep its hands clean of such actions. Yeah we’ll send them nukes all day long, but we’re not “responsible” because we didn’t actually launch them. However Harris sanctioning a strike on Gaza is nothing different than Trump has already stated, so a vote for either candidate wouldn’t change that outcome. On the other hand, Trump absolutely has done far more damage domestically, and promised to do even worse if he gets elected again, so I’m still in the party of “anyone but Trump”.
I never thought Biden would hardline this much on a straight genocide yet here we are.
But answer the question honestly. If Harris said she would Nuke Gaza as well would you vote for someone else?
It’s not a simple question, I would have to know the circumstances that lead to such a drastic situation, who was running against her, and what realistic chance any 3rd-party candidate had of getting the votes from others. The reality is that it’s not something that is ever going to occur because even Trump isn’t senile enough to forget that such an action would incur the wrath of other NATO members. You can play what-if games all day long, but unless you create an entire imaginary world to go with your implausible scenario, you’re not going to get any legitimate answers.