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.
I’m going to tell you a secret.
The people who say this, the leftists that threaten to withhold their votes, tend to vote strategically anyways. But threatening to withhold votes is one way to apply pressure to politicians to do things like, say, stop promoting a fucking genocide. And then liberals lose their minds for some reason and make it totally irrelevant. And then we have a genocide that lasts for 75 years and starts world war 3.
It feels like watching Trump burn the middle east to the ground instead of Harris would be cold comfort for anyone proud of not actively voting for a different genocide abetting candidate. There is no anti-genocide candidate, sadly, but one party has at least the shadow of a conscience that can be pressured later.
I am both anti-Israel and anti-Hamas. Both have gone full evil.
I am pro unarmed civilian.
And yes, invasive settlers are frequently “armed” with machines of destruction like dozers. If only they could be satisfied with what they have already stolen…
2 reasons jump to mind.
-
When I listen to people who personally identify with the people of Gaza, it goes way beyond logic. They have a completely emotional reaction. Their choices are almost completely driven by the question of, “Who is doing what, right now?” Questions of, “Who will do what 6 months from now?” take a distant back seat.
-
Every time the topic comes up, Democrats dogpile on them and call them morons. People will often respond with something like, “Yeah but that’s OK because they ARE morons.” I won’t argue if that’s true or not but it’s pretty obvious that line of reasoning won’t win a lot of converts.
-
Asking this question on the tankie/bootlicker instance… That’s brave.
Lots of people foolishly think political parties can learn lessons.
The vote should be for someone who can get enough electoral college votes to win in the first place, and from there the one who is more likely to listen to public pressure, as well as the same for any congressional seats on the ballot. And probably not vote for the one who is threatening to send the military after those who disagree with them.
deleted by creator
Which as a non-American seems to be Harris, right?
Yes, Harris is the only realistic option. Anyone voting for Trump is a Nazi in the most literal sense of the word.
If the people voting for Trump in the most literal sense of the word then they wouldn’t support Israel.
They aren’t supporting Israel because they care about the Israeli or Jewish people. They’re supporting Israel because they love blowing up brown people, with an unhealthy dollop of biblical foretelling.
For a vote, yes. I can’t even imagine what Trump would do with the situation given another chance. Some may say the same thing as the US has always done, which is one of the problems that will need to be addressed regardless of who wins, but Trump also likes dictators, so support would probably be bumped up even more for Netanyahu.
Your vote is your consent.
Imagine for a minute that your perfect political candidate was running. The only catch is that if they win they are promising to personally execute your family in front of you. The other guy is gonna kill your family too so everyone tells you to stop being such a single issue voter and vote for the lesser evil.
Do you still vote for them? Or do you refuse to participate in the execution of your family?
I don’t see a lesser evil here, both are going to kill my family. The lesser evil would be if one party is only going to kill half my family and yes I would vote for that party over the one that is going to kill ALL my family, after all it’s a two party system and one of them is going to win.
Does refusing to vote stop your family from being executed?
Probably not. But it doesn’t include your consent at the very least.
Maybe you’re a perfectly objective person who can still vote for your families execution. But I think most people would struggle with it, if they’re being truly honest with themselves.
It boils down to if you think any admin will ever change how the US deals with Israel. And if that’s true, then how does change happen? Maybe if the rest of the world pushes against the US? Other countries are having their own struggle with any change suggested being labeled as a convenient antisemitism. This is a huge US problem, but not JUST a US problem. And I know OP didn’t want to get into the politics of it, but it’s hard to avoid when that’s exactly what it is, politics while people die and other people try to object and question it but get stomped down for doing so.
I knew I’d get downvoted by some for asking how to arrive at some solution with the given dilemma we’re in. Maybe some people don’t want to fix it.
Because the only actual solutions violate us law to even talk about, and lemmy is subject to us law.
Does it? Or does it boil down to whether or not you are willing to rubber stamp the death of your loved ones.
When it’s theoretical gamesmanship people like you are more than willing to act like dispassionate chess masters but I have a hard time believing that if it was your family getting killed you would be so cavalier.
When you cease being part of the execution squad itself it becomes much easier to fight them.
Yeah! If you don’t vote, nobody becomes president!
The system marches on with or without your input.
Sounds like a good reason to work on opposing the system and thinking of your vote as a minor expression of your personal morality. And I would hope that personal morality draws the line at supporting genocide.
Does it?
Does your action help Gaza?
No.
So any moralizing based on that is wrong.
My actions? They certainly do, yes.
But you have deflected. Are you afraid of what I said?
Your vote is not your consent; that’s some nonsense made up to get people to not vote.
In your metaphor, you vote for one your family dies, you vote for another your family and another family dies. You refuse to participate in the system and both families die.
You didn’t consent to that, but you allowed it to happen via your vote of INDIFFERENCE which is what not voting means. It means you don’t care which way things go, because that’s all it can mean to not make a choice.
Easy to say when it’s not your family getting slaughtered.
But we all know you’re a paragon of rationality who would enthusiastically vote for an administration who has promised to kill your family because your love of lesser evilism outweighs anything else.
You know, you can find something evil in just about any politician’s policy depending on your personal perspective.
So let’s just not vote, because we shouldn’t choose. We should just morally abstain from having choices because making no choice is the only way to make a choice.
Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
If you want to protest genocide, then GO DO IT, don’t throw away a vote because that’s not a protest, it’s a pathetic excuse.
Of course we are talking about politics, not their metaphor. Metaphors break down pretty quickly in politics, as the actual material logic requires more than a five minute toy example.
In our current scenario, the Dems have a genocide candidate. If you vote for that and tell other people to vote for that, you are telling yourself and those around you that genocide is tolerable. Not just tolerable, even - recommendable in certain circumstances, pleading that it is reluctant. You are, in fact, helping to normalize genocide, and with it, dehumanize Palestinians. And if that genocidal candidate wins with your support, what will be the accepted consciousness? What will you and others internalize? It sure as shut will not be, “wow we should not have supported a fucking genocide what the fuck is wrong with us?” It will be, “hey cool we will support you no matter what, 98% Hitler”. The party will see this and nod their heads, “let’s start doing criminal charges for supporting Palestine” (they are already starting in this direction, e.g. Samidoun) and, “we never have to do anything our voters want”.
Basically, y’all have no concept of leverage but you do have a concept of personal morality and are absolutely trashing it. You will, of course, never be forgjven by those who consider Palestinians to be human. One must hope that you overcome this implicit racism.
We are literally in a battle for our ability to vote.
Abstaining from said battle is effectively saying “I don’t care” and letting Trump do what he will. If he chooses to send nukes to Palestine to end the conflict immediately, that’s on everyone that abstained. If he ends aid to Ukraine and those people die, that’s on everyone that abstained.
If he ends voting, you “won some moral battle” but you’ve all but permanently lost the war against genocide as the most powerful military and weapons on the planet are now in the hands of an authoritarian, raciest, fascist, regime that previously imposed a “Muslim ban” and I’m sure would happily do so again.
There is no hypocrisy here, and it’s disingenuous to imply there is.
If you want to protest genocide, then GO DO IT, don’t throw away a vote because that’s not a protest, it’s a pathetic excuse.
We are literally in a battle for our ability to vote.
If you (allegedly) feel compelled to vote for genocide there is little value in your vote in the first place.
Abstaining from said battle is effectively saying “I don’t care” and letting Trump do what he will.
You are not in a battle. You are a human looking at a phone or computer screen trying to normalize voting for genociders and after doing so you will stay home. If you believed your own words you’d be posting signup sheets for shifts in Voter Protection Brigades, ready to take the fight to those attempting to disenfranchise you.
Instead, you are sitting around trying to rationalize support for genocide.
If he chooses to send nukes to Palestine to end the conflict immediately, that’s on everyone that abstained.
The policy is already genocide, you don’t have a bigger gun to try pointing at people’s heads. If you cared about Palestinian life you would already understand this. Unfortunately you care more about your naive political sensibilities.
If he ends aid to Ukraine and those people die, that’s on everyone that abstained.
The Dems are certainly worse for Ukraine, they are using them as cannon fodder to hurt Russia.
If he ends voting, you “won some moral battle” but you’ve all but permanently lost the war against genocide as the most powerful military and weapons on the planet are now in the hands of an authoritarian
Both parties’ presidents are inherently authoritarian.
raciest
Both parties are exceptionally racist, one is just polite and euphemistic about it, normalizing their version of racism so that you accept it without a second thought.
In other news, have you seen Kamala’s stellar polic for getting black guys to buy crypto?
fascist
To the extent Trumpnis fascist, we have already been there for decades and decades buddy.
Did you notice the recent EO for domestic military deployments? Betcha didn’t. Y’all igmore fashy policies when your side does them. Incidentally, if your party is the bullwark against fascism, why is it giving the president so much power to invoke martial law? Hmmmmmmmmm.
regime
That is the correct term for all American governments, yes.
that previously imposed a “Muslim ban” and I’m sure would happily do so again.
Both parties have racist immigration policies, Dems just do it without much pushback. You see their “immigration reform” paxkage they tried to push through Congress?
There is no hypocrisy here, and it’s disingenuous to imply there is.
I don’t think it is hypocrisy per se. I think most Americans are just racist and too embarrassed to admit it.
If you want to protest genocide, then GO DO IT, don’t throw away a vote because that’s not a protest, it’s a pathetic excuse.
I don’t want to protest against genocide, I want to build power against it. And so far it is going relatively okay, though certainly not with any help from people like yourself. You are our explicit opponents that work against us.
You forgot the other scenario. You talk of not having leverage because of a vote, and yet the other choice absolutely has no leverage at all, and possibly makes things even harder to change.
Let me ask this - would you recommend not voting for either President, but voting on the rest of the ballot? Because telling people to not vote usually implies don’t show up at all, and that is part of why nothing changes. Local and state representation can matter more than the President.
Re: your question, I recommend that people consider Palestinians full humans and work backwards from there. I cannot prescribe much more than that outside of recommending they also challenge the omnipresent racist narratives used to manufacture consent for this genocide. That enough to begin a political education.
I don’t really care how an individual decides to check their electoral box, I care about your normalization of genocide and application if lesser evil logic in service of a fucking genocide. If some person wants to vote for some loser for Congress, have at it. But let this moment of genocid apoligeticss awaken you politically and to begin challenging these narratives that led you down this path. Read and learn and understand why genocide is in the table, and no it is not because AIPAC is a big donor. Biden was being real when he said if Israel didn’t exiat they would need to invent one.
You forgot the other scenario. You talk of not having leverage because of a vote, and yet the other choice absolutely has no leverage at all, and possibly makes things even harder to change.
I haven’t said anything like, “not having leverage because of a vote”. The relevance of leverage is that the entire premise of y’all’s framings is that your role is to cheerlead your corronated genocidal candidate and accept anything they do, at least up to genocide. You throw away any concept of your own ability to make demands or organize and subordinate yourself to a genocidal political class. It makes you actively work against those who build leverage as well, you try to sheepdog them back into your self-defeating mindset.
So, having thrown away any real political analysis for building and using power, your vote is really reduced to a reflection of your personal morality. And that morality? To look at Palestinians as subhuman.
Re: harder to change, your electoral logic is already self-defeatjng. What do you think you are changing when your electoral logic is, “fall in line vite blue no matter who” including fucking genocide. Who would ever take you seriously? You think they’re going to do anything to “win your vote”? Genocide apologist, they know they already have it. You announced you were giving it to them free of charge, that you will tolerate anything they do and still vote for them, and are actually pressuring others to do the same on their behalf.
You have thrown away any semblance of power or influence, and that is already within the limited confinea of electoralism. We all know that folks who think this way aren’t out there working against the party in alternative organizations.
Re: harder to change, your electoral logic is already self-defeatjng. What do you think you are changing when your electoral logic is, “fall in line vite blue no matter who” including fucking genocide. Who would ever take you seriously? You think they’re going to do anything to “win your vote”? Genocide apologist, they know they already have it. You announced you were giving it to them free of charge, that you will tolerate anything they do and still vote for them, and are actually pressuring others to do the same on their behalf.
The correct time to express such thoughts is during a primary. We didn’t have one because we had an incumbent; it happens.
The better place to have this fight is through congress anyways. They’re the ones that actually approve the aid.
Better yet, go talk to the Israel people and get them to vote for someone that stops using our weapons in such an offensive manor. Israel knows that their position is critical to the US interest and their current leaders are happy to exploit that.
Literally, abstaining makes you part of the “party of not voting” and nobody does anything for them, because they don’t vote.
The correct time to express such thoughts is during a primary. We didn’t have one because we had an incumbent; it happens.
There is no wrong time to be against genocide. It is, in fact, your basic duty as a human being claiming to have any empathu whatsoever.
The better place to have this fight is through congress anyways. They’re the ones that actually approve the aid.
Despite your pretense of knowing familiarity with how the system works, Buden has been bypassing Congress to send weapons to Israel for their genocide. Good ol’ JDAMs produced right here in the US of A, even.
Better yet, go talk to the Israel people and get them to vote for someone that stops using our weapons in such an offensive manor.
Israel is a settler-colonial state whose material interests are deeply tied to the dehumanization and oppression of Palestinians. There is no chance for a grassroots mobilization within Israel against the genocide. They want more blood than Bibi gives them. The most helpful thing for someone in the refion to do is to work directly to against Israel and their own governments’ complicity. The US has similar challenges in its material base and society but I am succeeding in my organizing goals here. Every person in the US has a responsibility to work against its war machine.
And Israel is not a separate actor, here. It is fully dependent on the US.
Israel knows that their position is critical to the US interest and their current leaders are happy to exploit that.
Right, they are actually close collaborators. You should work against them.
Literally, abstaining makes you part of the “party of not voting” and nobody does anything for them, because they don’t vote.
You should not vote for genociders or tell others to do so. Whether that means abstaining is up to the individual. I don’t really care. But you need to shed this idea that you are fighting the good fight by supporting genocide, you are actively harmful to working for the good of humanity. Instead of sheepdogging for Dems, join the people with empathy and organize against imperialism.
It amuses me how rational you think you are while simultaneously missing the point. The gop will collapse, and then the dems will be the right wing party that they want to be. And the fight will begin anew. Harris shift to the right is a fine demonstration of this.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. When would the GOP collapse? Dems of course want to move right, there is no capitalist draw to the left, if you can call it a left. They would love to be able to manage their party without a “left” flank to handle and pivot fully to nationalism.
When? Im not an Oracle. May take decades. May get worse before it gets better in certain areas. The USSR took a generation to collapse.
Im hoping harris move to the right has manages it. So we can split the dem party finally.
To push her to change her stance… you only own your vote. That’s the only leverage. She is the reason they aren’t voting for her.
Because they love the idea of trump sucking Israel’s dick.
It’s the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, “Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people”.
But if you take a step back it’s reasonable to ask, “WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don’t spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus’ forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose.”
So given that realization it’s also reasonable when told you must choose to say, “Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt.”
That’s the essential argument. There’s the realpolitik decision to do “less harm”, but you can also reject the fucked up premise.
I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It’s easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that’s harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris’ Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.
I’m still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.
The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/
Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel’s genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.
Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don’t see that from the Democratic administration.
Despite Trump’s horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It’s not logical, but it’s hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the ‘lesser evil’ doesn’t work when the ‘lesser evil’ is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He’s using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.
Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.
Quote
Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.
- Split Ticket (July 2024)
Quotes
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
- New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters (Full YouGov Report) (May 2024)
Quotes
- Data For Progress Poll (May 2024)
Quotes
Quotes
Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.
Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.
I wonder the same thing, specially since Trump is also pro-Israel and voting for either one wont save Palestine
Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who’s been actively supporting a genocide?
What message would we be sending if our replacement for them is a guy that wants Isreal to “finish the job” with it? Killing fewer people matters more than accountability
There is not a big difference between one who say finish the job and one who doesn’t say it but give every resources for Israel to finish the job
The message would be that voting Americans are not okay with genocide. Harris is actually culpable, while the idea that Trump would be significantly worse for the Palestinians and Lebanese is just hypothetical. Trump is actually the lesser of two evils this time. The allegations against him don’t amount to genocide by a long shot.
The message will be that Americans chose the guy who is complaining that the massacres are going too slowly
Remember that he was ardently supportive of the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen when he was president. We have seen how he handles this situation. He is absolutely not a lesser evil here.
can you describe this in Marvel or Harry Potter terms though?
He’s got a ways to go to prove himself more evil than Harris.
Why is his backing of the Saudi campaign in Yemen not enough to you? The war has a far higher civilian death toll than Israel’s current actions do, the Saudi forces in the area have a long record of likely war crimes including bombing a school bus full of children in Dahyan and declaration of an entire city of 50,000 people as a military target, Trump actually vetoed congress to prevent them from stopping arms sales to SA, and dozens of actual direct American drone strikes were carried out under Trump’s presidency.
Over a period of about six years and three US presidential administrations, the death toll in the Yemen war is estimated to have reached 377,000. In just over a year, solely under the Biden-Harris administration, 335,500 are estimated to have died in Gaza. Based on the death rate and the relative sizes of the affected populations, it’s clear who has more blood on their hands. Furthermore, support from the Biden-Harris administration has continued even though Israeli leaders have come right out and admitted their genocidal intent. The MBS regime certainly did commit atrocities in Yemen with catastrophic effects, but in that case at least there’s a shred of deniability regarding complicity to genocide. Harris has no excuse for continuing to support Israel, but the weapons and financing keep flowing. Therefore we have no excuse to support her.
So is your position that if the Saudis had killed Yemenis at the same rate as Israel is killing Palestinians, Trump would have reversed course? Bearing in mind that the war crimes weren’t enough, and he supported it significantly more actively than Biden and Harris are supporting Israel
Do you think electing Trump will be read as “wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights” by the world?
A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.
Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.
Electing Trump means Harris loses, which means that enough voting Americans believe that genocide is unacceptable to have held her as accountable as our system allows. It will be read as better than the alternative. Electing Harris means that we’ve been sold on genocide by a campaign that has embraced the Cheneys of all people.
… Or more likely, when the guy who was even more anti-Palistine manages to win the election, their takeaway will be to adopt some of those more-anti-Palistine policies and sentiments because they were apparently more popular. You’ve got the overton window backwards
That certainly seems to be the thinking of the Harris campaign.
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.
