US 2024 Presidential Election

[tippy2k2]

Great but I wasn't talking about voting for Harris. Just the logic of ''anti genocide'' being the reason when it cannot be. One cannot be an anti genocide candidate when knowingly boosting the more pro genocide candidate.

But if you're going with that logic, then you ARE saying I need to vote for Harris. Because otherwise what other choice do I get to have if I HAVE to vote against Trump but I'm not allowed to vote for someone who is Third Party since it is "impossible" to win as Third Party in this country?

You can muddy the waters by saying that it's the Third Party person that shouldn't run because it will "help Trump" but ultimately that just leaves me as the voter with the same two shitty options, neither of which I'm willing to vote for as long as they are both on Team "Let Israel do a lil genocide as a treat".

 

[Hades]

But if you're going with that logic, then you ARE saying I need to vote for Harris. Because otherwise what other choice do I get to have if I HAVE to vote against Trump but I'm not allowed to vote for someone who is Third Party since it is "impossible" to win as Third Party in this country?

You can muddy the waters by saying that it's the Third Party person that shouldn't run because it will "help Trump" but ultimately that just leaves me as the voter with the same two shitty options, neither of which I'm willing to vote for as long as they are both on Team "Let Israel do a lil genocide as a treat".

Not really. Just saying that you shouldn't cloak the rejection of Harris in anti genocide talk you know doesn't hold up. Just say you have antipathy for the Democrats and that this is strong enough to render you comfortable enough with a Trump victory. Its not even that much of an unreasonable stance to have.

At the end of the day if antipathy towards the Democrats renders someone more supportive of the far right then the center right then that's their business, but they shouldn't pretend its a principled stand or in line with their own belies. Because its not. If one is truly on the left then fascism would always be the bigger danger, and if one is anti genocide they'd be very wary of persons Bibi and Putin crave to have in power.

 

[tippy2k2]

Not really. Just saying that you shouldn't cloak the rejection of Harris in anti genocide talk you know doesn't hold up. Just say you have antipathy for the Democrats and that this is strong enough to render you comfortable enough with a Trump victory. Its not even that much of an unreasonable stance to have.

At the end of the day if antipathy towards the Democrats renders someone more supportive of the far right then the center right then that's their business, but they shouldn't pretend its a principled stand or in line with their own belies. Because its not. If one is truly on the left then fascism would always be the bigger danger, and if one is anti genocide they'd be very wary of persons Bibi and Putin crave to have in power.

If anyone here has ever wondered how we "LESSER EVIL'ed" our way to being completely fine with Israel killing civilians with our weapons and fucking GENOICIDE not being a Red Line to put your foot down on, I present to you EXHIBIT A. I always assumed that #VBNMW was just a flashy Democrat catchphrase that played well on social media but wasn't truly believed but I guess it is absolutely true and y'all would yell at people for voting for 99% Hitler because if 99% Hitler lost, 100% Hitler would win.

 

[BrawlMan]

The Phrase the Right Uses to Explain Why It’s OK That Trump Makes Things Up

A brief history of a phrase that captures our political moment.

slate.com

Trump Vs. Harris 2024 Polls: Deadlocked Race In Final Surveys And Forecasts—As Voting Ends In First States

Most polls indicate a tight race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

www.forbes.com

 

[Silvanus]

Great but I wasn't talking about voting for Harris. Just the logic of ''anti genocide'' being the reason when it cannot be. One cannot be an anti genocide candidate when knowingly boosting the more pro genocide candidate.

We have miss ''anti genocide candidate's'' team not just saying they accept the risk of the more pro genocide candidate winning, but revealing they're actively scheming to get that done, which obviously isn't very anti genocide.
View attachment 12025

There's a convenient sort of rationalisation among non-voters that refusing to vote doesn't benefit either of the two candidates in a FPTP contest. It's bunk, but it helps abdicate responsibility.

In truth, any action you take-- including wilful inaction-- is impacting the main two-horse contest, to a degree equal to a vote. As a general rule, inaction assists whichever candidate benefits from depressed turnout (so, the Republicans). On an individual level, inaction benefits whichever candidate you like least of the primary two.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Not really. Just saying that you shouldn't cloak the rejection of Harris in anti genocide talk you know doesn't hold up. Just say you have antipathy for the Democrats and that this is strong enough to render you comfortable enough with a Trump victory. Its not even that much of an unreasonable stance to have.

At the end of the day if antipathy towards the Democrats renders someone more supportive of the far right then the center right then that's their business, but they shouldn't pretend its a principled stand or in line with their own belies. Because its not. If one is truly on the left then fascism would always be the bigger danger, and if one is anti genocide they'd be very wary of persons Bibi and Putin crave to have in power.

Advocating for the literal genocidal regime just because they pretend they aren't isn't any sort of stance. And you blatantly have no argument that would even be taken as genuine dialogue, let alone persuasive. There are third parties, including Jill Stein, that could reasonably be believed to not support the ongoing genocide the current government is whole heartedly supporting to it's full ability. If they don't want the vote to split, they should change stance.

 

[Silvanus]

If anyone here has ever wondered how we "LESSER EVIL'ed" our way to being completely fine with Israel killing civilians with our weapons and fucking GENOICIDE not being a Red Line to put your foot down on, I present to you EXHIBIT A.

The problem with this is that "lesser evil" voting trends played zero part in creating the situation in Gaza. Had every "lesser evil" voter refrained from voting, the situation in Gaza would be significantly worse.

If you consider the moral stance-- to refrain from voting for any candidate that provides material to Israel's genocidal campaign-- to be of utmost importance, I'd say that's a perfectly moral and consistent position to take. But to be honest, a voter must face up to the practical consequences of any vote they cast, not just the ideals behind it; and following that voting pattern would have made the situation in Gaza worse. So I'm not telling you you're voting wrongly, not trying to convince you to abandon the principle-- which is a consistent and moral one. I'm saying you must also acknowledge that you're OK with accepting that risk.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The problem with this is that "lesser evil" voting trends played zero part in creating the situation in Gaza. Had every "lesser evil" voter refrained from voting, the situation in Gaza would be significantly worse.

If you consider the moral stance-- to refrain from voting for any candidate that provides material to Israel's genocidal campaign-- to be of utmost importance, I'd say that's a perfectly moral and consistent position to take. But to be honest, a voter must face up to the practical consequences of any vote they cast, not just the ideals behind it; and following that voting pattern would have made the situation in Gaza worse. So I'm not telling you you're voting wrongly, not trying to convince you to abandon the principle-- which is a consistent and moral one. I'm saying you must also acknowledge that you're OK with accepting that risk.

What a load of horseshit.

 

[tippy2k2]

The problem with this is that "lesser evil" voting trends played zero part in creating the situation in Gaza. Had every "lesser evil" voter refrained from voting, the situation in Gaza would be significantly worse.

If you consider the moral stance-- to refrain from voting for any candidate that provides material to Israel's genocidal campaign-- to be of utmost importance, I'd say that's a perfectly moral and consistent position to take. But to be honest, a voter must face up to the practical consequences of any vote they cast, not just the ideals behind it; and following that voting pattern would have made the situation in Gaza worse. So I'm not telling you you're voting wrongly, not trying to convince you to abandon the principle-- which is a consistent and moral one. I'm saying you must also acknowledge that you're OK with accepting that risk.

This is why while I won't compromise with Harris on this, I don't fault others who do and I'm not one of those people who say that a "TRUE LEFTIST" can't vote Harris. It saddens me that people aren't willing to take a fucking stand on Genocide (and if everyone who said they were against Genocide would actually take a stand, someone like Stein would win this election) but I understand that they're petrified about a hypothetical presidency because the actual presidency going on now doesn't hurt them, just a bunch of people far away so fuck'em.

I just want everyone to remember that good ol Holocaust poem because if you think Harris being willing to throw millions of lives down the drain (and millions of votes along with that from people like me who Red Line Genocide), you're going to be real shocked somehow when she decides that maybe the T of LGBT isn't all that important to help anymore (a much much MUCH smaller group than anti-Israel supporters) and then maybe the LGB part isn't all that important anymore and so on

Right now you're saying The People of Gaza are expendable because you're not a person of Gaza so sucks to be them but eventually, you're going to LESSER EVIL your way into a situation where maybe YOU'RE the one on the chopping block but there will be no one left to speak out for you because you decided they were an accepted casualty to make sure the LESSER EVIL got to stay in power...

 

[Agema]

If anyone here has ever wondered how we "LESSER EVIL'ed" our way to being completely fine with Israel killing civilians with our weapons and fucking GENOICIDE not being a Red Line to put your foot down on, I present to you EXHIBIT A. I always assumed that #VBNMW was just a flashy Democrat catchphrase that played well on social media but wasn't truly believed but I guess it is absolutely true and y'all would yell at people for voting for 99% Hitler because if 99% Hitler lost, 100% Hitler would win.

The problem with using "red line" in that way is that it suggests things couldn't be even worse. But they could be worse... a lot worse.

Israel could start much more aggressive, even deliberate, mass slaughter. It could drive the Gazans over the border into Egypt, killing everyone who resists, and steal the land wholesale. It could build a massive concentration camp in one small part of Gaza and force the ~2 million Gazans into it permanently, and take and settle the rest. It could then decide if it can do that to Gaza with impunity, it can do it to the West Bank as well and get going on that project. In all these hypotheticals, we're not talking about a 99% or 100% Hitler choice, we're more talking about a 50% or 70-100% Hitler. Even in the least of those "greater evils", there's a whole, heavy mass of additional pain, suffering and injustice.

It is genuinely a difficult choice whether what should determine a vote is a "red line" set well before the worst, or the practical consequences of not preventing something beyond the red line even worse. To be fair, I doubt even Trump would countenance the above scenarios and this makes a decision not to oppose him much easier - maybe more like a 50% / 55-60% Hitler decision. But nevertheless that extra 5-10% is still a significant chunk of pain, suffering and injustice.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This is why while I won't compromise with Harris on this, I don't fault others who do and I'm not one of those people who say that a "TRUE LEFTIST" can't vote Harris. It saddens me that people aren't willing to take a fucking stand on Genocide (and if everyone who said they were against Genocide would actually take a stand, someone like Stein would win this election) but I understand that they're petrified about a hypothetical presidency because the actual presidency going on now doesn't hurt them, just a bunch of people far away so fuck'em.

I just want everyone to remember that good ol Holocaust poem because if you think Harris being willing to throw millions of lives down the drain (and millions of votes along with that from people like me who Red Line Genocide), you're going to be real shocked somehow when she decides that maybe the T of LGBT isn't all that important to help anymore (a much much MUCH smaller group than anti-Israel supporters) and then maybe the LGB part isn't all that important anymore and so on

Right now you're saying The People of Gaza are expendable because you're not a person of Gaza so sucks to be them but eventually, you're going to LESSER EVIL your way into a situation where maybe YOU'RE the one on the chopping block but there will be no one left to speak out for you because you decided they were an accepted casualty to make sure the LESSER EVIL got to stay in power...

Funnily enough, Collin Allred (who is running against Ted Cruz) just recently used his faith and family to say he's against boys in girl's sports.

Now, in the same way I'm skeptical of dems when they say they're going to be helpful, I'm actually skeptical that Allred would vote against trans protection in a moment where his vote mattered. I do believe he's lying to get elected here. But it is a bit startling that he would even pretend to compromise on that.

The problem with using "red line" in that way is that it suggests things couldn't be even worse. But they could be worse... a lot worse.

Israel could start much more aggressive, even deliberate, mass slaughter. It could drive the Gazans over the border into Egypt, killing everyone who resists, and steal the land wholesale. It could build a massive concentration camp in one small part of Gaza and force the ~2 million Gazans into it permanently, and take and settle the rest. It could then decide if it can do that to Gaza with impunity, it can do it to the West Bank as well and get going on that project. In all these hypotheticals, we're not talking about a 99% or 100% Hitler choice, we're more talking about a 50% or 70-100% Hitler. Even in the least of those "greater evils", there's a whole, heavy mass of additional pain, suffering and injustice.

It is genuinely a difficult choice whether what should determine a vote is a "red line" set well before the worst, or the practical consequences of not preventing something beyond the red line even worse. To be fair, I doubt even Trump would countenance the above scenarios and this makes a decision not to oppose him much easier - maybe more like a 50% / 55-60% Hitler decision. But nevertheless that extra 5-10% is still a significant chunk of pain, suffering and injustice.

Do you not watch the news? That's literally what's happening right now. That's what's been happening for a year now. They have driven the Gazans into an even smaller concentration camp, they have been claiming territory, they are currently pushing into the West Bank. These aren't hypotheticals, this is the news.

 

[Silvanus]

This is why while I won't compromise with Harris on this, I don't fault others who do and I'm not one of those people who say that a "TRUE LEFTIST" can't vote Harris.

Well, you say that's not what you're saying, but then you go on to say essentially exactly that.

It saddens me that people aren't willing to take a fucking stand on Genocide

I think you know perfectly well that the "lesser evil" voters actually are voting according to conscience, including on the genocide, and its just that their approach/risk-acceptance conclusion is different to yours.

Right now you're saying The People of Gaza are expendable because you're not a person of Gaza so sucks to be them

No, but nice try. An equally valid perspective would be that non-voters are selling out Gazans, or treating them as expendable; they are after all willing to risk a far worse situation. And they're taking that risk when they themselves don't need to pay the price-- sucks to be them.

Or, more realistically, both of these groups are making highly compromised decisions, in which any action they take will unavoidably affect the main two-horse contest, and there are no good options.

 

[Hades]

There are third parties, including Jill Stein, that could reasonably be believed to not support the ongoing genocide the current government is whole heartedly supporting to it's full ability. If they don't want the vote to split, they should change stance.

A funny sentiment considering its Jill Stein's team gloating about being able to put the more pro genocide candidate into office. The candidate who's the sole pro genocide candidate on Ukraine even.

Not to mention that third party candidates literally are unable to win in the US, something Stein's team admitted when they gloated about being able to boost the more pro genocide candidate.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

A funny sentiment considering its Jill Stein's team gloating about being able to put the more pro genocide candidate into office. The candidate who's the sole pro genocide candidate on Ukraine even.

Not to mention that third party candidates literally are unable to win in the US, something Stein's team admitted when they gloated about being able to boost the more pro genocide candidate.

Hey, if enough people vote for them, they'll win. They're unlikely to, but even getting a paltry vote share is enough to give them funding in the future. Pivoting to Ukraine is fine, but someone's already given up the ghost on Palestine, the big sticking point. Nobody can say how Trump would be worse. Agema gave "hypotheticals" that are just happening right now. Israel, right now, is threatening to bomb UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. You can pretend Jill Stein is the real genocide choice, but that's only a position that makes sense to people with rotted brains.

 

[Hades]

You can pretend Jill Stein is the real genocide choice, but that's only a position that makes sense to people with rotted brains.

Not what I'm saying. Just that she is working on behalf of the pro genocide choice and that her team even directly stated to be aware of this.

So she can't run on an anti genocide platform. What she can say is ''I hate the Democrats for not sharing my views on Gaza, and if punishing them means that Trump gets to allow Bibi to inflict trice as many civilian casualties then that's just what needs to happen''

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I see you're choosing to ignore all evidence that you are misinformed about anything.

Hey look, here's Trump bragging about how he'll withhold disaster relief funds from states that he doesn't like. You know, the thing he [allegedly] already tried to do.

Misinformed my ass. It's exactly in line with his personality and now he's not even trying to hide it. He's proud of how vindictive he is.

Trump threatens to withhold emergency funds from California after criticizing FEMA

Former president held a rally in Democrat-leaning California on Saturday, despite having no chance of winning the state

www.the-independent.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4879150-trump-threatens-wildfire-aid-newsom-smelt/

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Not what I'm saying. Just that she is working on behalf of the pro genocide choice and that her team even directly stated to be aware of this.

So she can't run on an anti genocide platform. What she can say is ''I hate the Democrats for not sharing my views on Gaza, and if punishing them means that Trump gets to allow Bibi to inflict trice as many civilian casualties then that's just what needs to happen''

Why are people under the impression that Biden is at all holding Bibi back? The naked face of "lesser evils" is exposed, we're in it. Bombing refugee camps, burning food, starting a regional war, bombing UN peacekeepers. And you people are mad that there is a sizable number of people who just don't like genocide as much as you, and will invent any argument out of thin air to shame. No, Jill Stein is not the pro genocide candidate. In a just world she would win. That's why there's a concerted effort to make up some alternative reality to paint her as the genocidal choice.

The worst part was the dems were starting to win people back with Walz and the "weird" line of attack. Clamped that down as soon as they saw it working, I guess thinking their work was done. They do deserve to lose, they have nothing but contempt for voters. They empower republicans to be worse and worse, ensuring there will never be an election that can afford to be questioned. They laid out the rope and tied the noose. Somebody is getting hanged and they expect it to be us. Nah fam, miss me with that "Jill Stein supports genocide" nonsense. If the only response to the dems racing up to join Hitler is "Rs will be super Hitler!", that tells me the dems dropped the ball decades ago to allow things to reach this point, and absolutely need to change position. But they never will if they get unconditional support.

Hillary lost, Biden ran to the left of her (even if it was lies) and won a massive turnout, and Kamala was doing great until she ran to the right. Embracing genocide may very well cost her the election, and it would be deserved.

 

[thebobmaster]

I'm starting to realize politics was a mistake. No matter what someone thinks, they are wrong. In this election, both potential winners are problematic, but one is so much worse than the other, but voting for the less problematic person is still bad because they have negative stance A, as opposed to the other one who has negative stances A, B, and C. There is candidate C who doesn't have the negative stance A, at least actively, but they aren't part of the big two, so has no chance, and is only running to try to make sure the worse candidate wins, which is somehow better than actually having those stances.

But hey, none of it affects me, so why should I care? I can't do anything about it, I don't have any power, and I'm wrong for trying to use what little influence I can, so why fucking bother if I'll just get blamed for it?

 

[tippy2k2]

I'm starting to realize politics was a mistake. No matter what someone thinks, they are wrong. In this election, both potential winners are problematic, but one is so much worse than the other, but voting for the less problematic person is still bad because they have negative stance A, as opposed to the other one who has negative stances A, B, and C. There is candidate C who doesn't have the negative stance A, at least actively, but they aren't part of the big two, so has no chance, and is only running to try to make sure the worse candidate wins, which is somehow better than actually having those stances.

But hey, none of it affects me, so why should I care? I can't do anything about it, I don't have any power, and I'm wrong for trying to use what little influence I can, so why fucking bother if I'll just get blamed for it?

 

[thebobmaster]

It is, and there's nothing I can do about it, and I'm getting blamed for that.