-46
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 24 Aug 2024
-46 points (33.8% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2197 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My question to the people withholding their vote because of Gaza is: what is your plan to support the Palestinian people when Trump gets in? How will you be supporting them when Trump starts calling for nukes? What will you be doing when Trump decides to use the US military to suppress protests?
I'll stand proud that I didn't vote for the people who were already complicit in genocide
Fat load of good that'll do for the remaining Palestinians after Trump helps Netenyahu finish the job. Why would you be proud of such a monstrous thing?
Yes, I'm "monstrous", but not the Democrats who have happily supplied Israel with weapons to commit their genocide.
Your moral compass is broken.
Never said they weren't, but you're helping the even more monstrous Republicans nuke Palestine. Your moral compass is missing.
Who is going to nuke Palestine? That's pure speculation.
Meanwhile, the current administration is ACTUALLY actively helping Israel starve, maim, and kill children
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna145752
OK again, it's pure speculation. First, that's a Senator, who doesn't even have the authority to use nuclear weapons. Second, the Democrats have shown that they love Netanyahu and will do whatever he wants. If he calls for nukes, maybe a Harris administration will consider it. After all, the party all enthusiastically clapped for the genocide
Sounds like speculation to me. On the other hand, Trump said Netenyahu to finish the job, and called him as a private citizen to tell him not to agree to the Democrats ceasefire because it would help the Harris campaign.
You need to consider actually learning about what's going on instead of clutching your pearls over politically impotent purity tests. Gaza is a wildly complicated geopolitical situation, as the top comment pointed out. You just come across as naive and uninformed.
I'm sorry what's speculation on my part???
Second, Trump said that? Oh yeah, he means whatever he says all the time. He never lies, he never talks out of his ass, he ever makes promises he won't keep
Meanwhile, the current administration has failed to act at every "red line" crossed by Israel and continues to ACTUALLY SUPPLY Israel with weapons to continue its genocide.
Sorry that my "purity test" is "no complicity in killing children".
And I'm sorry to see you feel that killing children is "a complicated situation".
Speculation.
The mental gymnastics here is too much for me to believe you're sincerely suggesting this excuse. The Republicans are far more favorable to Netenyahu. To suggest otherwise is laughably out of touch.
Say you didn't read the to comment without saying it.
1, that stuff is appropriated by Congress, the administration legally cannot deny supplying what was voted on. Legally, Israel is our ally, and our actions are limited, unless you prefer that American hegemony was entirely unchecked and the President could just do whatever they want regardless of how Congress votes? Maybe if leftists voted lesser evil instead of clutching their pearls, we'd have a Congress that would change things by now, but at least you get to be proud of inaction as the world passes you by.
2, as noted above, AIPAC is a powerful force in our elections, and there are more Zionists in this country than you think; this should be the case, it's terrible, but it's true and pretending it isn't relevant does not achieve useful goals. A hard-line stance at this point will mobilize them and possibly cost Dems the election.
3, as noted above, Republicans would be objectively worse for Gaza, they're open about that fact. The administration has been trying to broker a ceasefire for months, Trump has personally taken action to sabotage that same ceasefire.
Long term, the best strategy is voting Dem and applying pressure immediately after the election, when they can safely take action. Voting Republican is the worst strategy if you care about Palestinians; not voting is the second worst strategy, and ultimately achieves the same thing. When you can understand why careful deliberate action is necessary in complex and delicate political situations, you will be mature enough to have a potentially valuable opinion on geopolitics. If you think abstention is ever an effective strategy, then you are not yet mature.
Actually, the best strategy is to tell people you won't vote for genocide before the election. Whether you do end up voting or not is immaterial to the pressure that can be applied when the party is at its most influencable, but telling people to wait until after the election to try and move the party is telling them to wait until their influence is at its minimum.
Nope. That validates progressives not voting, which can convince the progressive you're talking to to not vote, which results in a Republican victory and more support for Netenyahu. That strategy hurts Gaza, we've been over this. It's like you totally ignored all the logic in favor of repeating the same geopolitically ignorant taking points you've been fed by right-wing stooges trying to sabotage the neoliberal party in favor of the fascists.
Sorry I don't feel represented by a political party that aids and abets genocide. Democrats have a chance to earn my vote and continue to squander it.
The logic is that if the party doesn't have an incentive to change then it won't.
Totally irrational. It's not about who represents you most, they aren't on the ballot. It's about which of the two represents you more than the other. What incentive does the party have to sabotage their races (AIPAC influence is real) to court an uninformed bloc that's unlikely to vote in the first place? Your abstinence is not incentive, no logic whatsoever.
I already know America is not a democracy, that's why I don't feel the need to vote in support of a corrupt system.
Depends, do they need our votes to win the election or not?
If they need our votes, they should start acting like they're trying to earn them.
If they don't think they need our votes, then they don't have to represent us. And since they don't represent us, we shouldn't vote for them.
It's perfectly logical, you just don't like the conclusion that the logic points towards, because it betrays the party leadership as being self-interested, cynical, and willing to aid and abet genocide to preserve their bloody campaign funding.
Do you... do you think that if enough people don't vote that the government will say "Shucks, guess we have to redo the election with better candidates"? If only one person in the whole country votes, they decide the winner. You gain absolutely nothing by not voting, all you're doing is shifting power to those who disagree with you the most. This is just plain idiotic.
They need enough votes. If they think pandering to your demographic will cost them other demographics, they will not pander to you. Despite your claims, America is a democratic republic, granted with it's own peculiarities in determining electoral votes. The candidate who wins the most votes wins the state. You will be left in the dust as irrelevant noise in the flood of people who know how to use their vote, and you will get zero representation. Congratulations.
Nope, there is no logic. It's based on nonsense feelings with no correspondence to the functional mechanism of our elections. Abstinence has no effect, and in fact will probably push the party farther right to scoop moderates because they actually vote. Congratulations.
I wish. A sane electoral system would declare a redo if the abstains win. No, I simply don't consider how other people will be voting to be a factor. I'll base my decision not on the promises they make, but the ones they have already fulfilled.
What I gain from not-voting is a clear conscience.
And if I'm the deciding vote in my solid-blue state then power has already shifted so far that my one vote won't hold it back for long.
The only idiotic part is how much time you're wasting trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist to pick between the negative peace that is a false promise of a "reasonable" politician and an increasingly demented madman who stands out as the greatest living example for why the management of our lives can't be trusted to a political party.
Then they should stop pretending that they're on my side. They aren't "the left", they're liberals who can abide by genocide so long as it's happening somewhere else. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Make up your mind, is it "democratic" or does everyone's vote not count?
Of course, they were going to do that anyway, especially if we live in the good timeline where the Republican party collapses under the weight of its impending electoral failure. Democrats will keep triangulating towards the right to pick up the mythical "moderate" and become the new right-wing party while some new group starts to pick up the pieces on the Left. Probably the greens.
Not sure what promises the Harris administration have fulfilled, since it hasn't existed yet.
That might be a point if I was trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist. What I'm actually doing is publicly debunking your public nonsense so that impressionable onlookers in swing states don't try to emulate that nonsense.
Votes count. Non-votes don't. There is no conflict in logic here.
All the more reason to entice them further left now so that the future landscape, in the good timeline, rests further left. I'm all for that future, and want it to start off as far left as possible.
And how, precisely, is a promise that they don't have to move further left to earn your vote supposed to entice them into anything?
A party with a comfortable margin can embrace less centrist policies when their voters ask for them (write to your representatives everyone). A party with an uncertain margin has to calculate their platform to target the largest demographics. Using your vote + using your voice = representation.
How, precisely, does a promise that you won't vote for them unless they alienate a larger demographic entice them into anything?
They must have a very comfortable margin if they can ignore the majority of Americans and instead embrace less centrist policies like helping Israel bomb schools and hospitals.
You should be happy, you can safely ignore my vote and my voice because the Democrats will be winning this election regardless.
The segment of Americans that oppose genocide are the majority, the smaller group that the Democrats are trying not to alienate is AIPAC. The only things that could entice them to change are an even larger quantity of campaign financing, or electoral consequences.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's the majority. I think the majority either support Israel without really thinking about it, or don't care.
Your vote I can ignore, your voice muddying the water for other impressionable voters I cannot
Unfortunately, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Democrats disapprove of Israel's military adventurism in Gaza:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/08/kamala-harris-dnc-israel-palestine-polls-voters-ceasefire-arms.html
Of poll respondents. There's a large overlap between people who don't care, and people who don't answer polls. And oh yeah, Harris has been calling for a ceasefire
And disregarding AIPAC is stupid. Picking up the single issue voters by overtly pissing off AIPAC during the election will unleash a multimillion dollar ad campaign. Look at what happened to the squad.
There's no good reason to do that now. A smart candidate would stay relatively quiet until the election, and then go full bore on the offensive. Especially since, y'know, the vice president doesn't even have authority here so it's stupid to blame it on her. Especially when the other candidate is actively sabotaging ceasefire negotiations.
There's just no logic here.
"Of voters. There's a large overlap between people who don't care and people who don't vote."
If you're going to argue that polling isn't an effective means of determining public sentiment then you probably shouldn't pretend to care about voting.
Wake me up when there's some action behind those words.
Indeed, look at what this foreign influence campaign did to our precious American democracy. But hey, we're not ready to talk about it because the parties want to have their cake and eat it too.
You said "smart" but you appear to have meant "complicit".
Since when did they abolish the bully pulpit? A lack of authority only means she couldn't change national policy unilaterally, it doesn't mean she can't actively work against arms deals and for an embargo.
Thus, the obvious move is to make the ceasefire negotiations a fait accompli by refusing to reload the aggressor's weapons. Even Trump can't sabotage a ceasefire if there's no fire left to be ceased.
I dunno what to tell you. My heart aches, aches for Palestine. More than you know. But I'm not a politician, I don't have tangible power to improve things for them directly. And none of the politicians seem particularly bothered. They're focused on their campaigns, maintaining the status quo, all of it. Like you said, complicit. It would be great if any of your strategies, or the strategies of the protesters, if anything helped. Actually made a difference. It might assuage some of the dread implicit to our daily lives as profoundly privileged and comfortable citizens of the West.
But it's resoundingly obvious that's it's just another minor calculation that gets rolled into the other calculations to win elections. People are dying. Innocent people. It eats me alive. But I'm a privileged , comfortable westerner. My ethical inclinations don't mean shit at best, and soothe me into thinking my compassion is valuable in and of itself at worst.
But I know what backwards looks like. And backwards is bad for everyone, Palestine included. Ukraine too. All the disenfranchised minorities in this country too. I can't just revel in my irrelevance, exercise my privilege by tapping out because no one on the ballot has the perfect platform. I'm afforded the opportunity to slow the backslide. And maybe slowing the backslide isn't enough for you.
But it's something tangible, and I'm going to do it. I'm going to vote lesser evil. Not like my life depends on it, because for all my troubles it's been a blessed life compared to others. If I die tomorrow, I've had a better go than most. I'm voting lesser evil to slow the backslide to mitigate damage for others, because that's what I can do.
I don't live in a clear blue state. Lots of other people don't live in clear blue states. Lots of them identify as leftist. Many of them are here. I'm begging you, don't project your exceptional privilege as a clear blue citizen as universal. This is serious, backsliding is bad for everyone. Carelessly fomenting apathy in people who could actually help is horrific. This isn't just Internet arguments. Innocent people are dying. Stop this. The Dems are garbage neo-libs, but the opposition is tangible evil. Enabling genocide is horrific, but it's marginally better than acceleration of genocide. The opposition is worse. Anything I, and the millions in swing states, can do to mitigate that horror is better than apathy.
That's what I keep begging for, but instead I keep getting shouted at by Democrat sycophants who want me to vote now and fix the party never.
You really don't get it. This is just politics to you. Find. Just please, for the love of God, stop trying to drag others down with you. That's all I have to say.
"Just politics"?
This is a matter of life and death, and you're on the side that's teaming up with Republicans to make sure the bombs keep flowing:
The issue is much, much larger than what Israel is doing to Gaza.
If you fail to vote for Harris, you allow Trump to win.
If Trump wins:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-israel-pr-hugh-hewitt-21faee332d95fec99652c112fbdcd35d
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_Southern_Lebanon
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-mexico-military-cartels-war-on-drugs-1234705804/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-does-not-rule-out-building-detention-camps-mass-deportations-2024-04-30/
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/07/trump-endorsed-plan-purge-civil-service-rogue-bureaucrats/375028/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/kash-patel-trump-administration/index.html
To be clear here, if Harris does not win, Trump will. Those are your two choices. You can choose to vote for Harris or you court disaster. There is no viable 3rd choice.
Agreed.
Since my vote is now the deciding factor, I have some demands that the Democrats will finally have to listen to if they don't want Trump to win.
Did I say "some demands"? I meant "just do the bare minimum", Jesus..
Precisely. Democrats know they're the only game in town so they have no incentive to offer better policy. All demands for them to show some basic humanity can be deflected with cries of "But Trump!!1!".
The big problem with the Democrats is that they fail to acknowledge that the Republicans are not honest brokers. The Democrats insist "the system" works and if they work with the Republicans to get things done, everything will be fine.
Meanwhile the Republicans have two strategies:
When they're in power:
"We won! You have to do things our way! Elections mean things!"
Democrats: "Fine."
When they're not in power:
"You're being mean because you won! You have to do things our way or you aren't being bi-partisan!"
Democrats: "Fine."
They either move policy to the right, or block everything until policy moves to the right. Since they don't actually want government to do anything, they consider both positions a win.
The Democrats are too spineless to counter this action.
Removed, civility.
Fair, these self-destructive leftist types get my blood boiling.
I'm autistic.
The liberal mask slips, revealing the fascism that was there all along.
Says the person who literally just told me to sit down and shut up.
"We've gotta vote blue to save Democracy! No dissent will be tolerated!"
Love your post, brother! And I love that quote from Dan Kervick.
I'm with knightly on this one. All of your bullying and the Dems bullying have done nothing but make me even more inclined to vote third party.
I want NOTHING to do with your party. Dems are just as bad as the Republicans now.
Third party all the way for me and many of my friends.
Maybe you all shoulda been nicer and dialed back the hate towards any and everyone that disagreed with you.
The hateful comments I have seen from Democrats here on Lemmy these last few weeks have been fucking eye-opening.
I'm happily voting third party now.
Exactly! The Dems have been saying "Oh, sure we need change, but not THIS election. THIS election is too important. Next time, tho!" for 50 fucking years.
50 fucking years and they have done nothing to change anything.
I'm done waiting for them. Not voting for them again.
Agreed!
Well said!
Some of us aren't "witholding" our vote at all.
I'm voting third party. Because I believe in the party I'm voting for.
Depending on which state you live in, a 3rd party vote is equivalent to a vote for Trump when everything is said and done.
Yeah. Unfortunately, people who love genocide want the guy who bombed the fuck out of Yemen to take over next year. It's tough to read those guys urging others to take the same position and pretending it is normal.
A third-party vote is a vote for the candidate I believe in, not an automatic vote for Trump or anyone else.
My voting reflects my values, and I'm not driven by fear of an outcome.