• blackbelt352@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    So the genocide is going to stop if Republicans win right? …Right?? I mean it’s not like presidential candidates are signing bombs used on children saying to finish them… riiiight?

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You’re at a work retreat for a month, and management is taking a vote on what to get for food. Word is that everyone else is about 50/50 split between BBQ ribs, and pepperoni pizza. You’re a vegetarian, what you’d really like is Indian food, but the only ones interested are a handful of other vegetarians. If ribs win, you starve, if pizza wins, you spend the next month picking off pepperonis. How do you vote?

        Edit: lots of downvotes, but not a single answer. What a shock.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Again, no one said anything about voting for republicans. How about you try on this hypothetical:

          You’re president of the USA and the country that receives the highest amount of your foreign aid is committing genocide. If you continue sending billions in dollars and weapons then you lose votes, but if you stop supporting genocide, then you gain votes. How do you president?

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            But I’m not the president, I’m a voter. I’m not talking to the president, I’m taking to a voter. Hypotheticals about being the president offer no insight into beneficial behavior for myself or the one I’m taking to. Hypotheticals about voting strategy do.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                No-genocide hasn’t been on the ballot for many, many years. Turns out, the voters who feel strongly enough about this particular genocide for it to affect their vote are a fairly small fraction with characteristically low turnout anyway. Sadly, not really worth actively pursuing as a candidate.

                Your choices are between measured diplomatic tolerance of genocide, and enthusiastic acceleration of genocide (with a couple other genocides thrown in too). It’s a close race. No genocide doesn’t have a chance, and voting no genocide increases the odds of enthusiastic acceleration of genocide.

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  No-genocide is on the ballot right now and it’s being made loud and clear, but biden is choosing to ignore it and people like you are trying to shame the people who care about genocide into not caring about it with hogwash like this:

                  measured diplomatic tolerance of genocide

                  That is a ridiculous string of words.