Anyone who explicitly decides against voting for Harris/Walz implicitly decides that they’re fine with Trump.
And anyone who explicitly decides voting for Harris/Walz explicitly decides they are fine with genocide irrespective of Trump.
If Trump promised to end the Palestinian Genocide, but all other points of his agenda (labor protections, lgbt rights etc.)
were the same, would you vote for Trump instead? Would you fuck over every other bit of progress for that one issue?
In a fantasy world where he would actually do it, yes? So you’re saying you are okay with max libertarianism in your own county even if that means ethnically cleansing an innocent population in another? That’s a very backwards understanding of liberty and human rights.
Also saying “that one issue” when we’re talking about a literal genocide is super rich. Would you have said the same thing about the Holocaust? “I know this Hitler guy really hates minorities but look at how much he loves doggos and what amazing things he’s doing for the German economy!”
If the Overton Window can be yanked back to the left and the Christofascists left behind
You see voting for a party that has vowed unwavering support for an oppressor to exterminate a native population as a move to the left? You’d rather vote for Librofascists than Christofascists and that’s your choice - I’d rather not vote for fascists at all.
Just don’t blame voters that draw a hard line at genocide if the Dems lose, rather ask why they are willing to throw an election by not taking a hard stance against the literal worst crime against humanity.
And anyone who explicitly decides voting for Harris/Walz explicitly decides they are fine with genocide irrespective of Trump.
No. They decide that they prioritise the other issues over a vapid gesture of protest.
For direct democratic votes, you directly vote on a specific issue. But in a representative democracy, you vote for the candidate best representing your preferred policies. If there is no candidate that ticks all your boxes, you prioritise and decide on a tradeoff.
That tradeoff takes into account the strategic realities of the voting system. If I have to choose between “Genocide”, “Genocide, but worse” and “I’ll let the rest decide”, abstaining or voting 3rd party is no noble gesture, it’s complacency.
In a fantasy world where he would actually do it, yes?
You’d let an out and open fascist take the reigns, if he’d stop one particular genocide?
So you’re saying you are okay with max libertarianism in your own county even if that means ethnically cleansing an innocent population in another?
So much wrong with this sentence. First, no, I’m not a libertarian. If you mean liberty, check your translator. Second, we’re very far away from “max liberty”. Third, that’s a false equivalency: To refuse one extreme doesn’t equal embracing the opposite. There is a lot of space between them.
Fourth, if it’s about the defense of civil rights, I need to look to my own freedom first. I can’t help anyone else when I’m chained down myself. Particular if I can’t help the others this way anyway, it’s a lot smarter to prioritise things I can actually change than try to set a sign and hope it stays up long enough to matter.
Also saying “that one issue” when we’re talking about a literal genocide is super rich. Would you have said the same thing about the Holocaust? “I know this Hitler guy really hates minorities but look at how much he loves doggos and what amazing things he’s doing for the German economy!”
Brilliant! Your example for “that one issue” is the exact guy Trump would love to buddy uo with! The exact guy whom I hate with a passion because of so many issues, not just one. Would Hitler have been a good person if he hadn’t killed the Jews (just enslaved them, deported the gypsies and generally still been an all around racist cunt)?
You see voting for a party that has vowed unwavering support for an oppressor to exterminate a native population as a move to the left?
That says a lot about where the window is, yes. Because both major parties fit that description, except one of them is even worse. Hence, the less bad one is a left, relative to contemporary political center.
You’d rather vote for Librofascists than Christofascists and that’s your choice - I’d rather not vote for fascists at all.
So you’d rather have the rest of the people decide? You don’t care about gay rights or all that shit, you have no horse in that race, doesn’t matter to you whether the winner starts rounding up political enemies (you know, lefties like you and me)?
Because I fucking care. And I’m not going to throw a tantrum and quit the field because one issue I care about isn’t even on the board.
Just don’t blame voters that draw a hard line at genocide if the Dems lose, rather ask why they are willing to throw an election by not taking a hard stance against the literal worst crime against humanity.
I don’t understand why people are so sure that a hard pro-Palestine stance would help them. It would make them the prime target of propaganda designed to alienate the superficial moderates. It would make them a clear enemy of the AIPAC and other pro-Israel PACs that together hold a non-negligible amount of sway. I don’t think that the voters they’d gain by that outnumber the white moderates that hear “They’re antisemitic moslems” and believe it.
If you believe that using the ballot to protest an issue not being on the agenda is more important than the other issues that are on the agenda, you’re very narrow-minded.
The high horse you’ve chosen to mount will get us more genocide and a whole host of new issues for queer people and people of color. Nobody will be giving you moral brownie points for allowing that to happen.
Is your moral grandstanding worth the lives it’ll cost?
If you don’t like Trump then you should be begging Harris to act like she wants to get elected. Chastising voters because they don’t like your candidate is only going to make them dig in their heels.
Is your relative safety worth the lives of thousands of Palestinians? You seem to think so. But always remember - “pragmatic” support for the “lesser evil” isn’t going to result in less genocide - it just teaches them exactly how many atrocities you’re willing to accept.
When you tell politicians they can bomb any country, support any ethnic cleansing, and expand any war while still getting your vote as long as they wave a rainbow flag - you’re not preventing fascism, you’re just giving it a differently colored stamp of approval.
The fact that you think “moral brownie points” are even part of the discussion only shows you view the lives of people as nothing more than a political tool.
And look, if your moral framework tells you to vote blue - vote blue - but don’t let that be the end of it - go out and risk losing your freedom before there’s no-one left to risk theirs to save yours.
Removed by mod
And anyone who explicitly decides voting for Harris/Walz explicitly decides they are fine with genocide irrespective of Trump.
In a fantasy world where he would actually do it, yes? So you’re saying you are okay with max libertarianism in your own county even if that means ethnically cleansing an innocent population in another? That’s a very backwards understanding of liberty and human rights.
Also saying “that one issue” when we’re talking about a literal genocide is super rich. Would you have said the same thing about the Holocaust? “I know this Hitler guy really hates minorities but look at how much he loves doggos and what amazing things he’s doing for the German economy!”
You see voting for a party that has vowed unwavering support for an oppressor to exterminate a native population as a move to the left? You’d rather vote for Librofascists than Christofascists and that’s your choice - I’d rather not vote for fascists at all.
Just don’t blame voters that draw a hard line at genocide if the Dems lose, rather ask why they are willing to throw an election by not taking a hard stance against the literal worst crime against humanity.
No. They decide that they prioritise the other issues over a vapid gesture of protest.
For direct democratic votes, you directly vote on a specific issue. But in a representative democracy, you vote for the candidate best representing your preferred policies. If there is no candidate that ticks all your boxes, you prioritise and decide on a tradeoff.
That tradeoff takes into account the strategic realities of the voting system. If I have to choose between “Genocide”, “Genocide, but worse” and “I’ll let the rest decide”, abstaining or voting 3rd party is no noble gesture, it’s complacency.
You’d let an out and open fascist take the reigns, if he’d stop one particular genocide?
So much wrong with this sentence. First, no, I’m not a libertarian. If you mean liberty, check your translator. Second, we’re very far away from “max liberty”. Third, that’s a false equivalency: To refuse one extreme doesn’t equal embracing the opposite. There is a lot of space between them.
Fourth, if it’s about the defense of civil rights, I need to look to my own freedom first. I can’t help anyone else when I’m chained down myself. Particular if I can’t help the others this way anyway, it’s a lot smarter to prioritise things I can actually change than try to set a sign and hope it stays up long enough to matter.
Brilliant! Your example for “that one issue” is the exact guy Trump would love to buddy uo with! The exact guy whom I hate with a passion because of so many issues, not just one. Would Hitler have been a good person if he hadn’t killed the Jews (just enslaved them, deported the gypsies and generally still been an all around racist cunt)?
That says a lot about where the window is, yes. Because both major parties fit that description, except one of them is even worse. Hence, the less bad one is a left, relative to contemporary political center.
So you’d rather have the rest of the people decide? You don’t care about gay rights or all that shit, you have no horse in that race, doesn’t matter to you whether the winner starts rounding up political enemies (you know, lefties like you and me)?
Because I fucking care. And I’m not going to throw a tantrum and quit the field because one issue I care about isn’t even on the board.
I don’t understand why people are so sure that a hard pro-Palestine stance would help them. It would make them the prime target of propaganda designed to alienate the superficial moderates. It would make them a clear enemy of the AIPAC and other pro-Israel PACs that together hold a non-negligible amount of sway. I don’t think that the voters they’d gain by that outnumber the white moderates that hear “They’re antisemitic moslems” and believe it.
If you believe that using the ballot to protest an issue not being on the agenda is more important than the other issues that are on the agenda, you’re very narrow-minded.
The high horse you’ve chosen to mount will get us more genocide and a whole host of new issues for queer people and people of color. Nobody will be giving you moral brownie points for allowing that to happen.
Is your moral grandstanding worth the lives it’ll cost?
If you don’t like Trump then you should be begging Harris to act like she wants to get elected. Chastising voters because they don’t like your candidate is only going to make them dig in their heels.
Is your relative safety worth the lives of thousands of Palestinians? You seem to think so. But always remember - “pragmatic” support for the “lesser evil” isn’t going to result in less genocide - it just teaches them exactly how many atrocities you’re willing to accept.
When you tell politicians they can bomb any country, support any ethnic cleansing, and expand any war while still getting your vote as long as they wave a rainbow flag - you’re not preventing fascism, you’re just giving it a differently colored stamp of approval.
The fact that you think “moral brownie points” are even part of the discussion only shows you view the lives of people as nothing more than a political tool.
And look, if your moral framework tells you to vote blue - vote blue - but don’t let that be the end of it - go out and risk losing your freedom before there’s no-one left to risk theirs to save yours.
Which of the two choices in the US presidential election aren’t supporting a genocide?
Does your not voting for Harris end the genocide?