As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
If you reject the lesser evil, and all options possible to you are evil, then you by inaction support the greater evil, which, by definition, makes you evil. “Working against both”, when evil is inherit in all means by which you might do that work, is a fantasy you tell yourself to justify sabotaging efforts to limit the damage by practicing and encouraging what effective amounts to surrendering one of the few levers of power that you have any limited ability to pull.
I already addressed your lesser evilism logic. If you want to continue this conversation you will need to respond to what I say and not dither and repeat yourself.
You live in a fantasy and sabotage real effort to limit damage in the real world. You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.
“You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.”
you guys need to be a bit subtle in the gaslighting effort. where was all this anger for her supporting innocent kids being burned alive. go shout at her rallies to stop being a genocidal two faced hack. else you all are trolls trivialising an ongoing genocide and enabling future ones.
The effort to limit damage in the real world like advocating for a genocider?
Also, please do your best to act in good faith and not make things up about people.
Right now, you have 2 real choices. Every other choice is an effort to change your future choices. You want to push the democrats more left, and so do most of their voters… However your choices right now to effect the genocide are to either vote for someone that’s supporting the genocide or someone who cheers on and suggests more genocide faster. By abstaining, you’re putting yourself in the middle of the choice, which is potentially a worse outcome for Palestinians than making an upsetting choice.
That is the reality of the situation. By refusing to make an unpalatable choice, you’re helping to make a far worse outcome reality.
Does one of those choices include voting for PSL? Because that’s what I’m doing. Or is that not “real”? What if I write it in extra dark ink?
Remember, I said no more fibbing. Were you never taught that lying was wrong?
Maybe that believe that in their hearts but they do the exact opposite of what they should be doing to achieve that all the time.
Hmm PSL isn’t doing either sorry buddy looks like I managed to reach through the ether and do something other than vote for genociders.
PS the candidate you are defending is currently an active part of the genocide.
Remember, no fibbing!
Actually I am simply not voting for either genocidal candidate and spend my time doing meaningful work against it. And sometimes reminding liberals that they should not support genocide, since apparently they need to be told that.
There is no worse outcome than genocide.
Show me any examples of them limiting damage
deleted by creator
I am repeating myself because the notion that the least evil option available is the best one, that the lesser evil if you will is preferable to the more evil one, is axiomatic, that is, it’s a basis one takes when constructing a moral framework, not a consequence of one that can be reasoned through. If you do not agree with someone’s moral axioms, then there is simply nothing to debate, you and they are simply operating under mutually incompatible definitions for what is and is not the right thing to do. Restating that in a slightly different way is a way of testing if the axioms we are operating under are truly different, in which case further argument is pointless, or if we merely misunderstood eachother the first time around.
I await your response to what I said. I’m not interesting in watching you masturbate.
You came to the wrong thread then
Your problem is one of timeframes.
You might, though I personally don’t think so, be right on a single election time frame.
They’re definitely right on a timescale spanning multiple elections.
Right now, you are forced to vote for someone committing genocide because people kept choosing the lesser evil in previous general elections, and the party cheats in the primaries.
The situation you’re in, right now, disproves your argument.