If Democrats knew they'd lose for supporting genocide,.they wouldn't have done it. It's precisely because blue-no-matter-who voters convinced them that they were invincible that they ended up losing. They thought they could bully the base into voting for them because enough of the base was willing to be bullied and proud of it.

On the other side, Trump is more likely to lose the war on Palestine.

To start, we have to understand that the genocide of Palestine started before the October 7th attacks. Israel's rampant illegal settlements in the Gaza strip may have been the final straw that provoked Hamas to make a move, but Palestinians have been abused, forced into ghettos, and murdered by private citizens for decades. All of this, and nobody in the West ever really batted an eye at the suffering except for a handful of informed leftists.

If Harris had won, the most likely outcome is that the immediate conflict would eventually be paused, just like it paused after the second intifadas. No land would be returned, no settlements removed, but Hamas' forces would be decimated to the point they could not fight back and Israel would return to their quiet slow genocide until the stars align to renew their attack once more.

Now that Trump has won, the most likely outcome is...that the immediate conflict will eventually pause, just like it paused after the second intifadas. Israel isn't an island, if they ramp up their aggression ever further, eventually other parts of the world will push for sanctions on Israel. A Trump win doesn't suddenly give Israel carte blanch to build the gas chambers, they still have to pay lip service to international law. Israel will inflict a grievous wound on Hamas, deep enough that it will take another generation before conflict resumes, and go back to expanding their settlements.

This genocide has been happening since before I was born, and multiple Democrat presidents have had an opportunity to say something or work towards curbing Israeli aggression. They've all vaguely promised to work towards a two-state solution, knowing that the current two states are what they want. If Kamala Harris couldn't even call it a genocide, then she was no different, and it would be foolish to think she would actually take any steps towards meaningfully stopping Israel.

when you are laser focused on a single thing, anything else just slides past you. making life changing decisions with limited information is a uniquely american trait

I think people need to stop asking why didn’t people vote for Harris and as why DID people vote for Trump.

I think everyone on the whole, is completely underestimating the completely apathetic to politics voter. There is a TREMENDOUS section of the population that would sway from Trump if they felt energized to do so. Kamala was not it. Her policies were not it. Her stance alone on Gaza was not enough (but should not be dismissed).

People voted for trump because they: are a huge supporter, or they felt they had a fatter wallet during his administration. They feel burned by Biden and Kamala is more of the same. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

Biden shouldn’t have even run, no one wanted it. He even said he’d be a transitional president. Then he backed out and Democrats held no primary. Why would any apathetic voter (especially the ones who were unaware Biden dropped out, check google trends) vote for the guy who made their bank accounts smaller if that’s all they care about?

I voted for Harris but not without reservations. The democrats do nothing to resonate with the left, and continue to distance themselves from leftist policies, which were popular on ballot measures this election.

Here ya go:

Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win

It's simple, for a voter that doesn't have other important things or believes the candidates to be equal in other things, like the economy, it becomes a moral choice to not vote for genocide.

If they believe there will be human rights violations elsewhere, like in the US, but one candidate and not the other, then the moral choice becomes to limit harm.

Much of this argument stems from different base assumptions, as follows-

• Neither Trump nor Harris will commit other human rights violations, and they are materially the same to my family; staying home is the moral action.

• Trump will commit human rights violations, voting for Harris is the moral action.

• They will both commit more human rights violations; staying home is the moral action.

The people who were saying to stay home and not vote fell into camps 1 or 3. If you're unsure of why someone would believe in number 3 you should know we have illegal debtor's prisons that are ignored by the federal government, LGBTQ abuse that has gone unchecked by the federal government, illegal denial of asylum directly by the federal government, ... the list goes on. But rest assured there are reasons people would see them both as committing human rights violations in the US. This is not some Russian info op like the DNC fanboys would have you believe.

To quote a user from another thread:

Theyre not the ones that need to learn. Voters need to learn DNC is a bunch of wealthy moderates grifting voters.

What's the counter-argument in favor of genocide?

More importantly the vast majority of votes don't matter because the system was created by slavers in order to guarantee their oppression never ends.

Only if you don't recognize that Trump would be much, much, much worse. And what we see from the election, many can't seem to see that (in any way).

1. Due to the failings of the electoral college system, my state was almost guarenteed to vote the same way as it has for the last 30 years
2. I did not strongly agree with either party/candidate
3. I dispise the current two party system that both major parties are incentivized to maintain
4. Voting for a third party who is incentivised to push for change via ranked voting and other methods does aid them even if they don't win

If my state was likely to be contested, I may have voted differently. Voting for a third party in my case however had a greater impact than fighting or joining the tide of my state

Morals and ethics are subjective and based on emotions. That's why science doesn't say what's good or bad. I don't think you can prove or disprove this argument. People who are strongly focused on Gaza simply reject views that challenge their own.

because americans see voting the same as buying and endorsing a thing which is objectively wrong.

Not buying a product hurts the manufacturer.

Not voting does jack shit. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

America has powerful Karen/Kyle energy where people overreact to a slight flaw in service and this argument is the Karen/Kyle Tantrum argument over genuinely bad policies supported by Harris. They think if they take a fit this election they will be in a better spot next election. The reality is that more poeple will be homeless and out of reach. The media will be in worse shape.

Voting is always a trolley problem.

But overall I don't think that's the biggest group of people. The majority of people that didn't vote I think were tuned out of the election because of ongoing failures.

I think there are no right or wrong. It became clear that both Democrats and Republic pushing the same exact support for Israel. When it comes to Palestine there are no lesser Evil.

Leading to this election, Israel burned hospitals and people in tent alive in Jabalia, barely any internet access, no water or food enters for almost 50 days now.

They carpet bomb gaza, attack UN bases, and finally declare UNRAWA can no longer work, another UN agency.

This is under Democrats. They already finishing the job.

Now what exactly Trump or republic will do is going to be the same. nothing will change because we are at the worst and there is nothing more they can do to make the situation even worse.

So if they are the same, and the government is not listening then what is the point of participation in election?