it is more like genocide vs genocide + whole bunch of other human rights violations.
if you are not planning to overthrow the government by revolution then there is no way to go from these two options to an “ideologically perfect” (whatever that means) government in just one election cycle, needs to be done in smaller steps.
Withholding your vote until genocide is taken off the table pressures her to give in to their demands, though. There’s no universal constant saying we need to have a genocide. Either she loves genocide, or she’s supporting it because she’s worried she won’t get the votes without it. If it’s the second one, and I hope it is, then the Uncommitted movement is simply doing the same thing to establish their own power, and for a better reason: to save the lives of their friends, family, aid workers, doctors, and journalists.
so late into the elections it will only increase chances of Trump winning and will not convince her to change stance.
the risk of this is that you move even further away from your goals, practically to a place where it is impossible to do anything about genocide (since core supporters of Trump wont give a shit about and Trump himself for sure will be where money and strongest lobbies are).
this plan only makes sense if your perspective is “by diverting votes we let Trump win, everything goes to hell and then there is some sort of reform/revolution after he fucks up everything”. But given that maybe %30 of the country is still big time Trump supporters, we are likely looking at a civil war in that case.
You’re never going to be able to convince a lot of people to accept a genocide of their own people. It’s just not possible for some and I don’t blame them. A lot of Americans have never been attacked at home so they don’t understand. It’s a gamble the Administration is doing to keep up their rabid cheerleading of the Nazi-like side. Hopefully it doesn’t blow back on them.
what if realistically speaking the only current choice is between even a worse situation in middle east vs maybe slightly better than the status quo? I know it sucks but without changing how the elections in US works, you are not going to go from democrats vs republicans to a progressive major party in one election. In one election your only chance is to get slightly closer to it or quite further away.
Nah, holding your vote appears to be you just being another unmotivated democratic voter without regard to why. No one gets polled on why they didn’t vote 4 years prior. At best Harris barely wins and at worst Trump takes office and you get 4 years of genocide + Ukrainian subjugation + subjugation of women, minorities, and immigrants at home.
Kind of a no-brainer that you should vote for Harris here.
Okay thats all nice and such but you don’t vote for who you want to lose you vote for who matches your values. If people are so anti-genocide, should be very easy for a third party who is anti-war to win, if people voted for their values.
Its true it won’t happen in one election, I think even if the democrats win this year that they had a lot more pressure from groups they hadn’t before, and they were loud and clear and well represented.
I’m still concerned there will just be trump 2.0 next election and the democrats will continue moving towards the right as they go, and just continue this lose lose schoolyard fighting nonsense.
Not if it’s withheld as part of a wider movement or given to a third party. That’s why it’s being paired with protests and other campaigns letting them know what they have to do to get their vote back.
Harris barely winning but losing something like Michigan to spook her into actually doing something material to stop supporting Israel is probably my preferred scenario right now, but she already said no arms embargo is on the table and after an election she’s not really beholden to voters anymore, so doubt that will help, either.
“barely winning” is a dangerous game to play when the consequences of losing is getting much much much further away from your stated goals. if anything it is impossible to push Trump to an anti weapon sale stance (since his core supporters don’t care and Trump is where money and strongest lobbies will be) than Kamala whose core supporters actually care but are turning the other way for now due to the fear of losing to Trump.
Supporting a genocide is a dangerous game as well, not only politically but physically, to at this point hundreds of thousands of people. Millions have been displaced from their homes. Not everyone can just ignore it so easily.
Doesn’t help if your plan not to support genocide is likely going to end up in a worse situation genocide wise, which also is supporting genocide.
Realistically speaking so close to the elections you only have two choices: a party whose every member will very happily support Israel and whose core voters won’t give a damn about it or another whose a mixed bag in terms of caring about genocide and who also has many voters who are concerned about support to Israel.
Both sides support Israel, one side has advocated and has vocal members who advocate against the genocide. The other side is for the genocide and thinks they should go further.
Who says I’m doing nothing about it? All you know about it is that I refuse to vote in favor of genocidal regimes. Besides, refusing to vote for someone who’s actively committing a genocide is doing something. It’s exercising your right to vote in a meaningful way by showing that there are lines you do not cross. I wouldn’t vote for Hitler when that was an option, and I won’t vote for Harris (or Trump) now.
Make sure to pat yourself on the back for doing something when the christofascists take over, applaud Israels “tough” stance on “terrorism”, and kill or chase out every Palestinian that doesn’t lick IDF boots and ask for seconds.
And you are so sure thats not happening now? How exactly could trump accelerate any of that. Israel literally does what it wants. It doesnt give two shits.
At least bring up the right ally we would be screwing over which is Ukraine, but oh look the democrats are fucking them over too. Interesting that.
While it may be said that Trump is not necessarily the most Israel friendly president, he is undoubtedly the most Netanyahu friendly president (the leader of the Israeli regime perpetuating the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank).
Trump brags he gave Israel the Golan Heights, part of Syria that Israel has been occupying for decades, by formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over it.
Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital is Israel and moved its embassy there from Tel Aviv. The status of Jerusalem is considered a key part of Israel-Palestine negotiations.
Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, mentions that Israel should remove the civilian population in Gaza and clean it up, stating it would be valuable waterfront property.
Trump killed the “Iran Nuclear Deal”, which was vehemently opposed by Netanyahu. When Netanyahu spoke in front of congress opposing the deal in 2015 he was invited by a Republican and Democrats walked out of his speech in protest.
Politicians that criticise Israel, or even want conditions on their “military aid”, risk being targeted by the pro-Israel groups. Jamal Bowman had his position more or less publically butchered to set an example and warn others not to oppose Israel. While some others survived massive spending against them by the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and other groups are effective in making sure most politicians avoid thr topic of Israel, at least publicly.
Netanyahu was clearly displeased with his meeting with Harris. His repeated escalation of violence is increasing tensions in the Middle East and angering a large subset of the US Democratic base. More and more people are under the impression that he is trying to harm the Democratic ticket and/or lock the US in conflict so that, of Democrats still win the presidency, they will have no choice but to continue to back Israel and Netanyahu’s regime.
I am well aware. I just want to make sure that someone is countering their argument so that their bad faith argument has less of a chance to impact an observer.
“I’m not going to vote because democrats aren’t communist which makes them basically republicans” - average Lemmy.ml user
Jk it’s actually something more like “I’m not going to vote because I’m European”
That or they’re not of legal age.
Eastern European specifically.
Even more specific?
As east as you can get in Europe :)
Do you not think genocide is a good reason to not vote for someone else? As far as red lines go, that’s a pretty good one.
it is more like genocide vs genocide + whole bunch of other human rights violations.
if you are not planning to overthrow the government by revolution then there is no way to go from these two options to an “ideologically perfect” (whatever that means) government in just one election cycle, needs to be done in smaller steps.
Withholding your vote until genocide is taken off the table pressures her to give in to their demands, though. There’s no universal constant saying we need to have a genocide. Either she loves genocide, or she’s supporting it because she’s worried she won’t get the votes without it. If it’s the second one, and I hope it is, then the Uncommitted movement is simply doing the same thing to establish their own power, and for a better reason: to save the lives of their friends, family, aid workers, doctors, and journalists.
so late into the elections it will only increase chances of Trump winning and will not convince her to change stance.
the risk of this is that you move even further away from your goals, practically to a place where it is impossible to do anything about genocide (since core supporters of Trump wont give a shit about and Trump himself for sure will be where money and strongest lobbies are).
this plan only makes sense if your perspective is “by diverting votes we let Trump win, everything goes to hell and then there is some sort of reform/revolution after he fucks up everything”. But given that maybe %30 of the country is still big time Trump supporters, we are likely looking at a civil war in that case.
You’re never going to be able to convince a lot of people to accept a genocide of their own people. It’s just not possible for some and I don’t blame them. A lot of Americans have never been attacked at home so they don’t understand. It’s a gamble the Administration is doing to keep up their rabid cheerleading of the Nazi-like side. Hopefully it doesn’t blow back on them.
what if realistically speaking the only current choice is between even a worse situation in middle east vs maybe slightly better than the status quo? I know it sucks but without changing how the elections in US works, you are not going to go from democrats vs republicans to a progressive major party in one election. In one election your only chance is to get slightly closer to it or quite further away.
Nah, holding your vote appears to be you just being another unmotivated democratic voter without regard to why. No one gets polled on why they didn’t vote 4 years prior. At best Harris barely wins and at worst Trump takes office and you get 4 years of genocide + Ukrainian subjugation + subjugation of women, minorities, and immigrants at home.
Kind of a no-brainer that you should vote for Harris here.
Okay thats all nice and such but you don’t vote for who you want to lose you vote for who matches your values. If people are so anti-genocide, should be very easy for a third party who is anti-war to win, if people voted for their values.
Its true it won’t happen in one election, I think even if the democrats win this year that they had a lot more pressure from groups they hadn’t before, and they were loud and clear and well represented.
I’m still concerned there will just be trump 2.0 next election and the democrats will continue moving towards the right as they go, and just continue this lose lose schoolyard fighting nonsense.
No, if it was a no-brainer, the no-brained idiot you’re responding to would already understand this.
Not if it’s withheld as part of a wider movement or given to a third party. That’s why it’s being paired with protests and other campaigns letting them know what they have to do to get their vote back.
Harris barely winning but losing something like Michigan to spook her into actually doing something material to stop supporting Israel is probably my preferred scenario right now, but she already said no arms embargo is on the table and after an election she’s not really beholden to voters anymore, so doubt that will help, either.
“barely winning” is a dangerous game to play when the consequences of losing is getting much much much further away from your stated goals. if anything it is impossible to push Trump to an anti weapon sale stance (since his core supporters don’t care and Trump is where money and strongest lobbies will be) than Kamala whose core supporters actually care but are turning the other way for now due to the fear of losing to Trump.
Supporting a genocide is a dangerous game as well, not only politically but physically, to at this point hundreds of thousands of people. Millions have been displaced from their homes. Not everyone can just ignore it so easily.
Doesn’t help if your plan not to support genocide is likely going to end up in a worse situation genocide wise, which also is supporting genocide.
Realistically speaking so close to the elections you only have two choices: a party whose every member will very happily support Israel and whose core voters won’t give a damn about it or another whose a mixed bag in terms of caring about genocide and who also has many voters who are concerned about support to Israel.
For me it’s the genocide.
• Democrats are VERY reluctantly adhering to a trade agreement and trying to negotiate and end to their hostilities.
• Trump said they need to “finish the job.”
bOtH siDeS!
So you’re gonna do nothing about it. Cool.
Both sides support Israel, one side has advocated and has vocal members who advocate against the genocide. The other side is for the genocide and thinks they should go further.
But you’re right, both sides, etc etc, Sit out.
Who says I’m doing nothing about it? All you know about it is that I refuse to vote in favor of genocidal regimes. Besides, refusing to vote for someone who’s actively committing a genocide is doing something. It’s exercising your right to vote in a meaningful way by showing that there are lines you do not cross. I wouldn’t vote for Hitler when that was an option, and I won’t vote for Harris (or Trump) now.
This was a funny read. Thanks.
Make sure to pat yourself on the back for doing something when the christofascists take over, applaud Israels “tough” stance on “terrorism”, and kill or chase out every Palestinian that doesn’t lick IDF boots and ask for seconds.
And you are so sure thats not happening now? How exactly could trump accelerate any of that. Israel literally does what it wants. It doesnt give two shits.
At least bring up the right ally we would be screwing over which is Ukraine, but oh look the democrats are fucking them over too. Interesting that.
While it may be said that Trump is not necessarily the most Israel friendly president, he is undoubtedly the most Netanyahu friendly president (the leader of the Israeli regime perpetuating the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank).
Trump brags he gave Israel the Golan Heights, part of Syria that Israel has been occupying for decades, by formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel
Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital is Israel and moved its embassy there from Tel Aviv. The status of Jerusalem is considered a key part of Israel-Palestine negotiations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_capital_of_Israel
Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner, mentions that Israel should remove the civilian population in Gaza and clean it up, stating it would be valuable waterfront property.
https://apnews.com/article/jared-kushner-trump-israel-waterfront-property-901895eeafee867e69d0c4582a4deb47
Trump killed the “Iran Nuclear Deal”, which was vehemently opposed by Netanyahu. When Netanyahu spoke in front of congress opposing the deal in 2015 he was invited by a Republican and Democrats walked out of his speech in protest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
Politicians that criticise Israel, or even want conditions on their “military aid”, risk being targeted by the pro-Israel groups. Jamal Bowman had his position more or less publically butchered to set an example and warn others not to oppose Israel. While some others survived massive spending against them by the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and other groups are effective in making sure most politicians avoid thr topic of Israel, at least publicly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/aipac-bowman-latimer.html
Netanyahu was clearly displeased with his meeting with Harris. His repeated escalation of violence is increasing tensions in the Middle East and angering a large subset of the US Democratic base. More and more people are under the impression that he is trying to harm the Democratic ticket and/or lock the US in conflict so that, of Democrats still win the presidency, they will have no choice but to continue to back Israel and Netanyahu’s regime.
But you haven’t considered the fact that the people you’re talking to are arguing in bad faith
I am well aware. I just want to make sure that someone is countering their argument so that their bad faith argument has less of a chance to impact an observer.
But I thought Russians were voting in us elections? 🤔