Summary
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich endorsed President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, stating it’s “time” to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.
This comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted his alignment with Trump on the “Iranian threat.”
Tensions in Gaza and Lebanon have escalated following recent Israeli airstrikes, with regional leaders gathering in Riyadh to address Israeli actions.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog is set to meet President Biden, though Biden’s influence on Israel may be limited following Trump’s win.
Well here’s a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.
I’m not going into the thinking behind it, but it’s certainly happening.
Being politically “engaged” on Lemmy doesn’t mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I’ve seen plenty of folks with a “democrats have to earn my vote” sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.
Did you link the wrong comment?
What you linked is just someone saying they can understand why someone who thinks both party’s won’t help, won’t be likely to vote.
I don’t read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won’t change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn’t vote.
So, the issue is you’re not understanding what people are saying…
You’re thinking they said something they didn’t and you’re getting upset about nothing.
Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?
If not, then you’re the one selectively interpreting this…
To avoid confusion because it seems likely:
A more indepth response:
What you linked:
They’re explicitly saying that the people whom didn’t vote, didn’t vote because both parties are too similar and won’t help. They’re saying those people need more than “not trump” to vote D.
I’m struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.
If this still doesn’t make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?
It just seems so obvious to me.
And this isn’t a new conversation, we’ve been having it since 2016, it’s been 8 years man… Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn’t who he said in 08
What aren’t you getting about this?
Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America… Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn’t vote is “neither party will actually help”.
You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___
You’ll notice that’s different from
The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren’t affected by voting therefore they shouldn’t bother voting. IF you’re a wage earner THEN there’s no point in voting".
The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn’t see change being discouraged.
Like you said in your own post,
So this entire slog I’ve went thru to help you understand…
Is because when someone says:
You take that as a statement of fact and not their opinion because they didn’t say:
There is nothing I can do to help you here or with anything else you may have difficulty with in the future.
EDIT: removed a block of text that took all too long to type out because I’m not going to spend more time further arguing the interpretation of someone’s comment as if it were religious script.
Quite frankly it hardly matters. You asked for proof of folks politically engaged yet not voting, I shared what I thought constitutes proof. You believe it doesn’t qualify, but other folks reading this can draw their own conclusions.
Thanks for keeping the conversation civil - have a good one!