1015
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Ahead of the 2024 election, Generation Z has sparked a trend on TikTok, “canceling out” family members’ votes by voting opposite their Trump-supporting relatives. Many young women post videos showing them voting for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, contrasting with family members supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Although Gen Z voters lean slightly toward Harris, a significant portion supports Trump. With over 47 million early votes cast, polls show a tight race, especially in key swing states.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] citrusface@lemmy.world 71 points 1 day ago

Looking at the captions in the image...

How could you be married to someone who supports Trump if you don't also support Trump. This just doesn't make sense or even seem safe to me.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

One possibility is that they got married before Republicans lost their minds, and now they are trapped.

[-] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 78 points 1 day ago

Abuse.

Religion usually plays a part.

Accepting the fundamental differences in viewpoint and pretending it isn’t there for the sake of kids

Etc.

My partners family comes to mind. Her mother is very liberal, her dad is a weird mix of liberal beliefs polluted by religion. They just don’t talk about it, everyone knows he’s wrong, he knows he’s wrong, he won’t change his viewpoints and his wife isn’t willing to collapse their family over it.

Most people don't think that much about politics.

A woman might have a husband who's generally a good guy and doesn't talk politics.

A few days ago he comes home and someone at work had been talking about how some Trump policy would be better for their industry. Husband is going to vote for Trump.

Woman Google's Trump, sees his abominable attitude towards women, sees tiktok about cancelling partners vote, votes democrat.

[-] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Maybe, but it does say "Trump loving", not Trump voting. I acknowledge and don't hold too hard a grudge on people who don't pay much attention and only vote on stuff they think will affect them. I still consider it selfish, but I will acknowledge some people have enough issues in their life to not realize how bad it could affect others.

For instance, one of my sisters friends voted for Trump in 2016 because she is a small business owner and thought he would be better for her business. I don't know how she has voted since, and she's a black mother in FL, so I hope she's changed her mind.

Still, I have seen people make excuses for themselves that they have to be responsible for their employees as well etc etc, so someone with a not hateful mindset may make a decision those of us more informed or plugged into may realize is much worse for them either way.

Edit, forgot my original point. The above included I don't think would be considered "Trump loving", so I think by that statement she's saying he loves more than just a policy or two.

[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

I know someone in this circumstance, and it comes down to exactly one issue: abortion. The spouse is Roman Catholic and cannot support abortion, so despite disagreeing with most of the republican platform, they feel obligated to vote with the party that opposes it. I had the same thing crop up in 2008 with a roommate who was Greek Orthodox and in every way one of the most progressive people I knew, but they voted McCain purely on this one issue out of religious guilt.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

The spouse is Roman Catholic and cannot support abortion

That is bullshit.

They can support abortion as much as they want, they don't want to support it.

I hate it when people say that they can't do X because their religion, be honest and say that you don't want to do X because they want to follow the rules of their religion.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

And abortion being legal doesn't mean shit for a Catholic.

No one's up in arms because non-Catholics eat meat during lent or don't believe in transubstantiation.

Their religious belief has no place in government. If they don't want to do it, then don't.

[-] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

I 100% agree with the sentiment, but you can't really compare not following religious rituals and what the religious consider murder. The existence of injustice is enough to mean something to someone. That's how empathy works.

People get up in arms over the death penalty, and I don't think it's right to tell them that if they don't like it, just don't commit a capital crime or pay attention to scheduled executions.

The same for both Ukraine and Israel/Palestine, people are demonstrating and attempting to bring their beliefs to the government. The people who have true conversations about abortion see these as equivalent.

[-] Narauko@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

That is true of everything that isn't barred by the fundamentals of physics, and disingenuous and you know it.

You can murder people, you can enslave others, Hindus can slaughter and eat cows, etc, you just don't want to because it's illegal.

For most religious people the tenents of their faith are core to their being and not something they just kinda like. Otherwise they tend to deconstruct from their religion after the inertia runs out. That's why religion in the West is on a downward trajectory outside of Islam which is driven by immigration.

I fully support reproductive rights as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend that the person outlined above single issue voting against abortion isn't looking at the other side as otherwise great but you have to accept a few sanctioned murders. You would probably be single issue voting if we had a modern Aztec government that was close to a utopia but practiced human sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl because it maintains prosperity.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

Real laws are different though, they have a state sanctioned justice system that forces compliance.

Following a religion in the US is not regulated by law, but is a choice.

Sadly, groups of people are working to change this.

If a religion's rules do become proper laws then you can use "can't" correctly.

[-] ghterve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But they choose to subscribe to that religion and could choose to stop. They could choose to no longer make it core to their being.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 23 hours ago

That is exactly my point, this is similar to veganism/vegetarianism, it is a choice you want to make and continue to make.

And I get it, I have had the privilege of growing up mostly without religion, that obviously colours my viewpoint, but if people could accept that religion is a choice rather than a fact the world would be a way better place.

[-] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Can you really choose what you believe, though? Could you make yourself stop believing in gravity or anything else you truly believe in? Could you make yourself believe in flat earth if someone told you too? The mind isn't something so malleable that you get to pick and choose your beliefs like a salad bar. Religious beliefs are one of the hardest to change, with even those leaving organized religion ending up frequently still believing in a God of some kind.

I grew up in a religious household but open minded and science oriented, so I deconverted and consider myself an atheist. I whole heartedly agree that the world would be a better place without religion, it's the world's greatest con job, but let's not kid ourselves about the spectrum of the word choice here. It's a (lesser) reverse of the religious telling anyone that isn't heteronormative in any way that those are choices. It's all brain chemistry occurring in a black box that we know vanishingly little about for how much we have studied it.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 18 hours ago

That is a fair point, and I am not asking to change any persons beliefs, I just think it is a copout to blame X for taking away your agency when you want it taken away.

[-] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

I don't think they are blaming their religion for their voting in so much as outlining that their convictions that are informed by/in line with their religion (life begins at conception) makes abortion their largest single issue. Those of honest conviction see abortion as murder, and specifically murder of a baby, and that trumps the rest of the ticket. There are plenty of grifters and hypocrites on that side too, but I would hazard that the "silent majority" on the right are the sincere convictions type.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

People change.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 1 day ago

my brother in law is voting trump. ugh.

[-] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago

So is mine.

The funny part? He's a union guy, doesn't understand (despite repeated attempts to show) that Trump is anti-union. I'm sure the key component for him is really just some of that good old fashioned bigotry.

Which is also silly since he's Cuban, and got some Testosterone shots recently (you know - gender affirming care).

He's just clueless and won't change his mind.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Shameful... The union members who fought and died for his right to be a member would be sickened by the idea of supporting someone like Trump (politics aside, even if you just look at his history refusing to pay workers and bragging about it).

I read that JD Vance crossed a picket line to do a rally or something a week or so ago. When I was younger, that shit would get you killed in a union town (possible hyperbole, they'd probably just break your legs and boot you out of town). Nowadays nobody bats an eye. It wasn't even in the news, I only read about it in my union newsletter.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

He may be a union guy, but he’s no Union Man.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 1 day ago

honestly mine is a pretty boy duche who would have completely fitted into frat life if he had went to university. Hes like a wannabe of the folks who might do well under trump (although history has shown even rich people do better under democrats as under republicans they get a larger percentage of a shrinking pie)

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Regardless of the election result, there will be a shit-ton of divorces incoming over the next 12 months because of it.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 15 hours ago

Well, the GOP literally wants to outlaw no fault divorce, so they better do it quick.

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
1015 points (97.9% liked)

News

23305 readers
3687 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS