• regul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you (or anyone else) will never change your vote about it, why would they adjust their position?

    You’ve given them no downside to continuing to support genocide other than the weight of thousands of innocent dead on their consciences. It should be fairly obvious how much that affects them.

    • ski11erboi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      2 months ago

      Unfortunately, there is a downside to allowing Trump to win. It’s the trolly problem and yes I will help pull the lever that kills people to keep even more people from dying.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        Democrats already started the second genocide in Lebanon.

        And soon a war with Iran.

        All the “greater evils” of Trump will have been fulfilled by democrats before Trump even become president

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          That is a total lie. That’s a very small segment of what Trump would do, and Trump wants to accelerate that too. He also holds a lot of anti-trans positions and anti-woman positions.

          • Mirshe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Don’t forget that Trump has pretty much promised to import the genocide home. It might not start off with people being gunned down in the street, but it’s definitely going to make life hard-to-impossible for immigrants, LGBTQIA+ people, and everyone who’s not a straight white man.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          However the American presidential election and the consequences of it’s outcome certainly is in large part about Donald fucking Trump.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      Following polls, they would have an upside of about a 6 point boost if they changed on policy. Which is certainly significant with the race as close as it is.

      Quote

      Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.

      Quotes

      In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.

      Quotes

      Quotes

      Quotes

      Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.

      Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you (or anyone else)

      Voters are a spectrum. Some number of people in OhStepYellingAtMe’s rough demographic either started out less engaged or have a more visceral reaction and won’t vote. A reliable Democratic vote being demotivated means an unreliable vote may already be lost. Not threatening to withhold your individual vote doesn’t mean comments like this aren’t a warning sign.

      • regul@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 months ago

        A warning sign the Harris campaign has continued to ignore and done nothing to try to win back.

        If they think they can win without people who won’t vote for genocide, best of luck to them, but they clearly don’t want my vote, so I see no reason why I should give it to them.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          people who won’t vote for genocide,

          Would you prefer to vote for the candidate who has been calling for a cease fire, or the one that has bent over for Netanyahu in the past and fully plans to do it again?

          Because those are the only 2 options available.

          • regul@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            2 months ago

            I won’t be voting for either of the two parties’ candidates as long as they remain pro-genocide.

            If they want my vote they’re more than welcome to come out with a strong stance against genocide.

            Pretty low bar. If neither candidate is willing to meet it I can only assume they do not want my vote.

            If they don’t want my vote they either don’t think they need it or they’re more committed to genocide than winning the election.

            It’s their call.

            • Max@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              The other option is that they simultaneously believe they need your vote, but also know that they would lose more voters than they would gain if they did what you’re asking. It’s not entirely clear that this is what’s happening, as there’s not been much indication that Kamala believes what Israel is doing is horrific, but it’s a very real possibility that you aren’t including. And in that case, voting for her remains the best you can do, since you not voting for her won’t convince the other people who’s vote she would lose. It will just lead to trump being elected.

              • sandbox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                2 months ago

                Some people, myself included, have principles which prevent them from voting for a genocidal candidate, even in a first past the post system where the other candidate is more genocidal.

                There’s very little point in trying to convince people who have a moral objection against supporting genocide to support genocide.

                Like, y’all could have a whole people-led movement to elect a third party if you really wanted to, and if nothing else it would maybe put pressure on the Democrats to stop supporting genocide, but you’re so fucking brainwashed into believing that a third party will never matter that you’re incapable of even conceiving the thought.

                • Max@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I understand that you have principles. I have principles too. But it sounds like your principles are at least partly based on a personal purity, which is what I’m arguing against.

                  The idea that by voting for kamala, you’ll be personally tainted by her actions. And that by not voting at all, you avoid this taint.

                  There’s a good argument in my opinion for not voting if you actually believe it will lead to the best outcome. Like for example that if enough people don’t vote it will cause our leader/parties/etc to do something better. I just don’t think this is true. And if it’s not true, what remains is a purity argument, which I find selfish, since it prioritizes your internal view of yourself over what happens to other people in the world.

                  I’m also absolutely in favor of third party candidates that push issues and the electorate to the left. I just think that generally they should drop out at the point when it becomes clear that they aren’t going to win and endorse the person closest to them on the issues.

                  • sandbox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    By voting for Kamala, you are expressly supporting her, and by extension, you are expressly supporting genocide. You can play all the rhetorical tricks you want, but that doesn’t change the reality of the decision you’re making.

                    If you can tolerate that, then we have different principles. I will never support genocide. If that means that my vote is worthless, then so be it.

                    If the will of the people can no longer be expressed through the democratic process, then the process is not democratic. It’s a farce, a performance designed to make you think that you can influence policy.

                    What we really need is revolution.

            • hobovision@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The not voting strategy has never worked before, why would it work this time? You want the let the future of this country determined by someone else?

                • hobovision@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I imagine we can agree no American president has been ideal? Some of the presidents who have given us the most progress in important areas like welfare, civil rights, and environmental protections have also been war criminals. Roosevelt, Kennedy/LBJ, Obama, etc. Imagine where we’d be if no one voted for the lesser evil in those elections, held firm and didn’t vote for the president who would set up concentration camps, or keep us in wars in Asia and the middle east.

                  Throwing away your vote got us presidents like GWB and Trump. Stalled progress for decades. Evil supreme court justices. In fact, the most underrated job of the president is picking supreme court justices, since the court has made itself the single most powerful institution in the country.

                  How about you vote for the most potential for progress?

                  • regul@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I won’t vote for anyone who’s pro-genocide. You’re clearly okay with voting for genocide, but I’m not.

    • hobovision@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      What are we going to change our vote to? Only two parties can win this year (let’s change that) and the other option is worse on this issue.

      • regul@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll vote for someone who is vocally and demonstrably anti-genocide. If that’s neither of the main parties’ candidates that’s their problem.

        I will not vote for genocide.

        • hobovision@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not voting is a choice. Not voting is saying you’re okay with either option. You’re OK with fascism because you can’t bear to have neoliberalism instead. Maybe you’d rather have genocide of both Arabs and Latin Americans? Maybe you’d rather have a president who has promised to make the genocide worse than one who might put some amount of pressure to make it less bad.

          • regul@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’d rather have a president who’s anti-genocide, so I’ll be voting for one of the anti-genocide candidates.

            You’re okay with voting for genocide. I’m not.

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Welcome to two party systems. The only way out is to abolish FPTP voting, the electoral college and (In the case of local/state elections) gerrymandering.