47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
47 points (89.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7383 readers
621 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
So who do they think they're going to vote for? Trump has also continually vowed his support of Israel and wouldn't have done anything different (except maybe sending even more weapons to them), while at the same time not supporting Ukraine at all.
They probably won't vote.
They're going to vote for somebody who is not open about the fact that they are doing a genocide. if that's too high of a bar for dems to clear that is dems problem and nobody else.
"You have tonvote for biden or trumpnwill bimb the rubble" is not an effective campaign strategy. They've concentrated the entire population into rafah and now they're moving into rafah, exactly like every single person criticizing Biden has been screaming they'll do since Biden started quadruppling down on unconditional support.
Trump might actually not be worse for Palestine because at this rate by next January there won't be anybody left to genocide.
Yeah man, we just gotta vote for the right guy and we can fix things
Just one more vote, just one more president, just one more and then we can vote for someone less evil than last time I promise bro
The war in Ukraine is lost.
It would be a lot easier for Democrats to stop supporting Israel if Trump was the one bankrolling the genocide.
Same way they opposed Trumps immigration policy as much as they could but let Biden silently do the exact same thing.
Cornel West is the best option available, the united states NEEDS an intellectual, philosopher, and social critic in office. It's been an exceptional shit show more recently. Voting in someone with the ability to actually contemplate the consequences of their actions and not just listen to those with the most money is severely needed to get back on the path to being a functional country.
True enough, but until we get some sort of ranked-choice voting, there's no chance of a 3rd party candidate being more than a minor blip in the voting numbers.
So your suggestion is to keep supporting the same people for ever no matter what they do.
How could that possibly lead to anything changing. You are explicitly sending the message "well keep supporting you no matter what so please do what we want even though it won't make any difference to you if you dont."
Is it worse than allowing someone to be elected who may not let you vote again? Is that the change you want? Literally a guy who tried to overturn a free election?
You could also recognize that voting is a rigged process and is in no way the limit of political action. You can then choose to do things that are better than using bad game theory to try to get people to vote for a genocide.