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.

  • Chaotic Entropy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

  • sweetpotato
    link
    fedilink
    279 months ago

    Because it’s a far right party. Trump happens to be more far right, but that doesn’t change that fact. I’m not voting for far right, neoliberal, genocidal freaks.

    At how many genocides do you draw the line? If the democrats committed a second one along with the Palestinian genocide they are committing right now? You’d again say trump would be worse, vote for Harris. If they committed three? Four? No matter what they do, Trump would do worse, so again you’d tell us to vote for Harris.

    I draw the line at a genocide and at everything this neoliberal party stands for. I am not giving that party my approval because it is going in the exact opposite direction of what I stand for. At some point, the lesser evil is too evil.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    189 months ago

    Because they’re willing to chop off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Only in doing so they’re going to screw over the rest of us and apparently they don’t care.

    Harris is the only sane choice.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    29 months ago

    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…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    199 months ago

    You say “so many” but I have yet to see any evidence that these accounts aren’t all controlled by the same guy in Moscow.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    279 months ago

    What has the current administration actually stopped Israel from doing? Every line in the sand has been crossed and there have been no consequences, trump won’t be worse for Palestine than Kamala

  • Avicenna
    link
    fedilink
    16
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    people dont seem to see the difference between ending up with a party for which a good chunk of their supporters think that what Israel is doing is a genocide vs ending up with a party for which all of their supporters think not only that what Israel is doing is justified but should also do the same to all middle eastern countries (together with direct USA involvement).

    I think there are two major subgroups within this group.

    First one is immigrants whose families are from the middle east/Palestine who are rightfully very angry at all the world for doing jack shit about Israel committing genocide. What they have to realize is there are unfortunately only two options going ahead: 1- as it is now, maybe somewhat better in future, or 2- much worse. There is no third option that is going to come out of these elections but one where there is potential for change (potential coming from the supporters mentioned above) vs %100 chance of things going for the worse. Note that I am not talking at all about the candidates themselves at all, just the demographic that generally votes for them.

    The second group is probably China or Russia fans who just want to see America suffer by getting Trump elected. These are very short sighted people with whom you cannot really have a coherent conversation with.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    329 months ago

    The US needs to fix their voting system before they can start voting third party. It’s probably even more difficult with Trump

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    21
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Because I live in one of the many many states were my vote doesn’t matter at all.

    What’s the point of casting a worthless vote in favor of genocide?

    People here act like we live in some kind of actual democracy lol.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.