• halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    89
    ·
    2 months ago

    They’re using synpathy towards people suffering genocide to try and coral people to the polls. I’ve seen this before. What happened with Roe V Wade? Why are kids still in cages at the border? Why is minimum wage still so low?

    Madam Vice President, too little has been done on issues that were previously promised. I cannot take these people at their word.

    Want my vote? End support now. It’s been a year of genocide with you at the right hand of Biden. All those lives lost happened on your watch. I will not be duped into voting for someone who has been complicit in commiting genocide, who is now promising to stop that same genocide because it happens to coincide with their political goals.

    I will not support a genocide, on the promise of it being ended, only to wake up on January 21st just to hear 'Well, the situation is more complicated than just simply ending support, but I vow…!"

    You’ve had a year to end it, and too little has been done to stop it. I will not vote for a genocidal candidate. I will not say that I support genocide by voting for these people. I will not be an accomplice.

    It’s sickening to think that they probably allowed the genocide to continue just to use it as a carrot to lead people to the ballot box, all the while lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.

    Fuck off with your promises, you’re in the White House now.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      Cool, just have a couple quick questions you can maybe help me out with:

      1. How exactly does a Harris loss benefit Palestine? Serious question. If she loses, Trump wins, and he is very vocally supportive of Israel. I get how this helps bolster a narrative, but how does this help Palestinians?

      2. How is what you’re doing any different from using sympathy towards people suffering genocide to try to influence voters? Serious question. If leveraging the tragedy in Palestine to corral people to vote a certain way is bad, why are you doing it right now?

      • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago
        1. The Palestinians are fucked either way. Either the party that enabled the genocide will stay in power, or a party will take over that everyone agrees will be worse.

        2. My stance on genocide will not change. There’s a good chance that the dems will use the genocide as a carrot to get voters to the polls, and then move the goalposts later. They’re leveraging genocide for political gain, I’m just against genocide.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Then you should be trying to prevent the guy who wants all the genocides from getting elected. But you’re not. Which is why no one believes you’re here in good faith.

          • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t care what others believe, they’re voting to support genocide. The only control I have in this situation is to not actively support those commiting genocide. Everything else is out of my control.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              Your options are “Genocide, but might be talked into dialing it back if politically viable” vs “More genocide, for genocide’s sake”

              All you achieve by not supporting the first is making the second more likely. If you think Bibi’s dictator-loving buddy is better for Gaza than the career politician doing career politician things during a close election, you are an enemy of Palestine.

              After the election when AIPAC loses their leverage, Harris could come around. Trump will double down. I’m voting against doubling down, are you?

              • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                Genocide is going to happen regardless, the only option I see as viable is to not throw my support behind the parties pushing for it. Harris could come around, sure, but I’m not going to bet on it and I refuse to support it.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You do realize that “Palestine’s fucked anyway, it’s more important to impotently virtue signal that I’m upset about it than to do something which might actually help them in any way” is absolutely sociopathic take that cements you as an enemy of Palestine, right?

                  • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    This is about voting for genocidal candidates, and has nothing to do with private donations or contributions to the Palestinians. I can donate to the cause to help them with food, water, and medical supplies and not vote for genocide.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      Virtue signalling about genocide and letting the ‘genocide to the max’ guy win will show the Palestinian people how much you care for their plight.

      • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        2 months ago

        I didn’t create the situation, I’m just reacting to it. Feel free to tell your kids and grandkids that, when given the choice, you actively supported a genocide.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re actively supporting genocide.

          It’s very obvious to absolutely everyone that allowing Trump to win will produce the worst possible outcome for palestinians.

          I honestly feel sorry for you. I think there’s a strong possibility your own kids and grandkids will be asking you about this time in history, and I suspect you’re going to realise in future how silly this “do x or I won’t vote for you” position is.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Would you like me to make a pdf with some words and some awful photos of what palestine would look like with a Trump supported Netanyahu?

              You realise that Netanyahu wants you to abstain from voting right?

              Russia, China, Israel, all understand that they can’t get you to vote for Trump, so they’ve been pouring many millions of dollars into manipulating your good self into not voting.

              In the article from this post Sanders explains in great detail why Harris is the most likely to negotiate a cease fire. Is that what you would like?

              If you refuse to vote for Harris you’re actively supporting genocide.

          • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            By virtue of birthplace, we are all supporting it. The only control I have in this situation is to not actively support the people who are saying they will give support to a genocidal regime. Also saying “Don’t commit genocide or I won’t vote for you” really should not be the controversial take that it’s become.

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              The only control I have in this situation is stand by and implicitly support/not oppose the people who are saying they will genocide even harder abroad and bring the genocide home so I can keep my moral high ground.

          • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            2 months ago

            I am already complicit by virtue of birthplace, that doesn’t mean I have to take an active role in supporting the lesser evil.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Then you’ve chosen to support the greater evil.

              You can hate the two party system all you want, but it’s the reality we live in.

              • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                2 months ago

                It is the reality we live in, and I’m not happy about it as much as the next guy. I refuse to give my support to any candidate who is saying they’ll support a genocidal regime. The rest is out of my control.

                • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Wrong. You are given some amount of control with your vote. You could choose to do something and are instead choosing to do nothing. You are choosing to abrogate your control.

                  • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    As voting is not required, I have not abrogated. I am doing something, I am using discretion to withhold support of genocidal candidates.

    • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      “If I can’t have zero genocide then I don’t care to vote against the candidate that is very likely to be even worse.”

      Especially with only two candidates with a chance of winning, a vote doesn’t mean unconditional support for everything that candidate wants. Sucks, but if you want to make your wishes known more specifically, you have to do more than just vote (if even that) and complain on the internet.

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        They voted against both, dont be mad your candidate was so shit she couldnt clear a ‘dont genocide’ hurdle from a voter. Thats not either your faults or problems its Harris’ problem.

        • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          The current system (or voter inertia) doesn’t allow you to vote against both. One of them will win, your only decision is which one you want (or despise less). If your vote doesn’t threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you’re voting for the winner.

          • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            The current system (or voter inertia) doesn’t allow you to vote against both.

            false premise.

            One of them will win,

            Yes.

            your only decision is which one you want (or despise less).

            false conclusion.

            If your vote doesn’t threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you’re voting for the winner.

            Man, you’re a mental pretzel. please re-read your statement a few times. think really hard on what you just said. come back when you realize how that statement works both ways and is beautiful nonsense.

            • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              You agreed that either Trump or Harris will win. Your vote can only threaten one of them, by voting for the other or an alternative candidate. Same with not voting, the winner won’t care about your missing vote.

              That means no action you take in the election will harm both candidates, ergo there is no way to vote against both of them.

              • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                That means no action you take in the election will harm both candidates, ergo there is no way to vote against both of them.

                mmmm. does it though? you think the goal is to harm one of their campaigns. its not. the goal is to do two things:

                1. ensure when harris gets into office shes bloodied enough in the deep blue states to know she needs to work with bernie and ideally you know not commit a genocide.
                2. ensure if trump wins that the democrats control both houses.

                you can read my post history. I’ve been very clear on this goal. its the only reason I’m wasting my time atm doing this along with other activities the last 4 months I’d really rather not be wasting my time with. like composing emails to my critters reminding them my vote for them is at risk if the genocide continues.

                What amazes me is individuals like yourself won’t even put an ounce of effort into helping Palestinians. just a few hours a day, lie to a few pollsters, email your critters, maybe vote 3rd party for president if you live in a deep blue state.

                If harris campaign is harmed by this, well I can hardly be blamed. I didn’t chose her policy positions. I certainly wouldn’t have chosen genocide as a platform. but people do weird things. like mentally contorting themselves into a pretzel to support a genocidal candidate when not doing so is much easier. I hope you manage to find your way, but I doubt it. 🤷‍♀️

                  • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    yes unfortunately you’re advocating for the 2nd shittest outcome. a flat harris win, when you could be advocating for a squeaker that leaves her position tenuous and her leadership within the dem party weak. please start lieing to your critters, exit polls, etc, and if possible vote against her in deep blue states.

      • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        The unfortunate thing is we can’t have zero genocide. I just don’t want to be complicit in supporting it. I didn’t create this situation or these choices, I’m just responding to them.

        • zenitsu@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not voting would make you complicit in making it worse if Trump wins. Doing nothing is still a move.

          • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            The genocide is going to happen either way, as both candidates are in favor of it. The only choice I have in the matter is whether to to support those candidates with my vote or not. I am complicit by virtue of birthplace, that doesn’t mean I have to actively support it by helping the lesser evil further their political goals.

            • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Buddy. It’s more genocide or less genocide, courtesy of the voting atrocity that is first past the post:

              Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

              We all hate that choice. And as the video shows, voting third party truly, truly is a vote for “more genocide”. It’s terrible.

              This is a tale of dorky obscure voting technicalities killing the potential for third parties, with the worst imaginable side effects in Gaza, and if you want to eliminate those side effects, you do it by playing where the action is: get ranked choice passed. Sort of like how a horrific, torturing skin disease might be beaten by some nerd with a bunch of diagrams about chemistry.