770
Anybody voting against Harris over Gaza is a moron. Trump may be even more pro Israel...
Gaza is hardly even an issue on the ballot, you're picking between slow genocide and fast genocide.
Slow genocide is better though. We all get that right?
Certainly gives us more time to try to do something about it, yeah.
99 more years at the current rate.
Slow genocide is better
Bernie is such a good guy. The Dems have done him dirty so many times, they are currently continuing to support many harmful policies but he understands what's at stake and he puts all of that aside to do the best he can.
He doesn't have to do this. He's 83 years old and while his cognitive health is outstanding for his age, someone his age doesn't need to be on this grind for us. He probably won't stop until he's forced to due to his health. I love the guy and it's a shame we weren't given the chance to see him take the presidency.
He is a leader.
I remember that old footage of him in Burlington in the 70's, talking to random kids in the mall, asking them what was important to them--drug policy, free speech, good schools--and just talking to them about how they could make a difference. From the bully pulpit, he would have been transformative.
That's a bad headline. Watch his video, he makes a much more nuanced argument.
The problem of the US is that you might lose more voters by dumping Israel than you'd gain by supporting Palestine.
Is there actual polling to that effect?
There are some polls that show roughly 35 to 60 percent of US voters backing the sale of arms to Israel, depending on demographics, but there is a very clear divide between Republican and Democrat support so it's disingenuous to say a candidate will lose more support than they gain because that depends on which candidate.
A lot of these polls also use loaded questions like "who is responsible for this conflict" with the two choices being Hamas and Israel, which doesn't really capture any of the nuance of the situation or represent the beliefs of the person answering the question.
I dont have them on hand, but I've seen a few polls in swing states where 5 or so percent more undecided voters would be more likely to vote for Harris if she promised an arms embargo, as opposed to less likely.
The fantasy world the zero-tolerance high-ground morality angels live in is as dangerous as the one MAGA lives in, and ironically has the same victims. They proudly polish their halos nice and shiny while they let the world burn.
Don't support genocide, it's as simple as that!
By the way: Voting isn't actually support. The American system is not set up in a way where votes actually add to the power of the Presidential office. On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action, which could be genocide. This means YOU HAVE TO VOTE HARRIS IN ORDER TO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. The socialism angels are hypocrites.
Voting isn’t actually support
On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action
Interesting. So, by drag's logic, a Trump voter isn't responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.
It's amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y'all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.
there are two facts about this election
- there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
- both candidates have a bad stance on the genocide
so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?
my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have... which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
Harris might be responsive, and let's be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it's definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?
load more comments
(30 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
First of all, at this point people in the US should vote against Trump for their safety, and that means in the current political system they have to vote for Harris. That's the reality they have to face. The Trump party has made fascist announcements that are real and people should expect them to be made into real actions.
The problem is that the Democrats frankly have abysmal messaging and are drifting to the right further and further while using Trump as a threat to their voters. They adopt anti-immigrant policies and are distancing themselves from pro-LGBT stances, saying it's the states decision. Both these issues as well as demands for a ceasefire poll exceptionally well, but the Harris campaign seemingly don't want the edge. With all this they are signaling that right wing worries about immigrants and trans people are valid, although that's absolutely not the case, and leave people to decide for example "do I want anti-immigrant light or extra harsh anti-immigrant?" when everybody says immigrants are an issue. This is unacceptably stupid and risking the vote. And that's ignoring the elephant in the room that progressive policy like health care is exceptionally popular and using that as counter messaging would win her voters.
We've seen how popular the Democrats got after Harris took over and Walz got nominated. It signaled change. Now all the Democrats say that it's gonna be the same old as usual treading on and the same bad argument vote us or you'll get a dictatorship. I'm not denying Biden dropping out had nothing to do with the surge of popularity, but back then we also had comments like here, basically declaring any dissent from supporting a decrepit old man as the candidate as heresy. Now there are again, only Yes men here saying if you criticize Harris you're a bot or a Trump ass eater. What is wrong with you?
Finally, I have the creeping suspicion that Democratic establishment people don't fear a fascist Trump administration themselves personally as much as the population has to. Trump announces he will go after his enemies, Latinos and trans people (probably all queer people actually). He has anti women's health and rights messaging all over his campaign. But that doesn't seem to be a risk for people higher up in the party. I suspect that when you're rich you don't have to worry about abortion bans or HRT access. And if Trump threatens them with violence they always have money they can throw at him. It's much more comfortable to run a risky neo liberal and right wing platform against a fascist if you can jump ship later on.
I was a Bernie-or-Bust-er in 2016 because I was confident Hilary was going to win with or without my vote. I deeply regret taking that stance and feel like I let down every woman who's lost rights to their bodily autonomy, every family who was separated at the border, everybody whose life was lost or ruined due to the Trump administration's incompetent response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and everybody else who has been harmed by the Trump administration.
Don't be like me. It sucks having to vote for the lesser of two evils but that's how our system works and not voting or voting third-party isn't going to change that but it does run the risk of things getting a lot worse.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
770 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19132 readers
4799 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS