Time is running out for Kamala Harris to break with Biden on the Gaza catastrophe | Moira Donegan
www.theguardian.com
Biden’s approach to Israel has been disastrous, both morally and strategically – and it could cost Harris dearly
  • regul@lemm.ee
    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.caEnglish
      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
        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
          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
            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
              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
                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
          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
              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
                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.