55
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
55 points (78.9% liked)
Palestine
835 readers
64 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They aren't voting for Trump, but Claudia De La Crúz and Jill Stein.
Yup every vote that isn't for Kamala is less votes the other side has to get to win. All for someone that has zero chance. That is voting for trump by proxy. GJ 👍
A vote for Harris is a vote for Trump!
tHE sKy iS grEeN
People who are won't vote for genocide certainly aren't going to vote for Trump.
One of two parties will win. Every vote syphoned off of what would normally be blue votes makes that one less red vote needed to win. Functionally turning a blue vote red. That is part of why I assume this is just a maneuver by conservatives more than actual thinking liberals.
Harris has chosen to embrace genocide, for voters that will not vote for genocide, she is impossible to vote for. These aren't blue votes being lost, this is the blue candidate turning red.
Secondly, liberals are largely loving Kamala and the genocide, it's typically Leftists who already hate the Dems who are abandoning her entirely.
That's what I said....they are now trump voters. Trump's whole thing is the downfall of democracy and the rise of christofascisim (with bonus genocide). IE, a stupid position given declared reasoning.
No, Harris is red, not blue, ergo the former voters that would have theoretically voted for a blue candidate can only vote third party.
Secondly, Trump didn't invent fascism, fascism is Capitalism in decay. The fascism is coming with Kamala too, as it currently is with Biden.
That would make sense if there were ranked choice voting.
there isn't, though
Ranked choice will not save anyone, nor is it even going to be established in the US.
It could be if enough people pushed for it, like they should, since it's objectively better in every way from first past the post, and would actually make doing things like this work.
How does that translate into reality? More people want Medicare For All and legalized weed, and even abortion rights. It isn't as simple as saying "it could be if enough people pushed for it," the parties don't operate on public will.
Do you believe no legislation has ever been passed due to public will?
I believe what drives the direction of the parties is maintaining their position and appeasing their donors. Legislation that fits popular will but goes against the former drives, like RCV, are a fantasy.
https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/
Great, it works out for the democrats, we just need it to be popular.
It doesn't, really. You'll see when it fizzles out.
Additonally, we can see even in other countries with RCV that it doesn't majorly improve things, RCV isn't a panacea, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie still dominates the electoral system.
I never said it was a panacea, I said you'd be able to vote for better candidates without risk, currently it makes no sense to vote for candidates that have no chance of winning.
if it fizzles out It'll be because of republicans, that many bills in that short of a time is not insignificant
i don't understand why you're arguing against ranked choice, it's objectively and obviously better than fptp
do vou think voting jill stein has a higher chance of success even though it's mathematically impossible?
if everyone doing that instead pushed for ranked choice, maybe you'd get some actual long term results instead of just throwing your vote away
I'm not arguing against RCV, I'm arguing against the idea that
1: it will ever pass, and
2: the idea that if it passed, it would change anything.
Revolution is necessary, something you'd think was obvious given your username.
https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/
you're wrong there, by your own reasoning, it would be hugely beneficial for the democrats to pass ranked choice.
Of course it would change things, you're clearly all or nothing, but the fact of the matter is ranked choice voting is OBJECTIVELY a better system, and it would allow you to actually run candidates and potentially make meaningful change. You would never have to hopelessly strategically vote and end up accomplishing nothing, you could have a socialist candidate that you could freely vote for without helping fascists. This is massive even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
I agree, revolution is necessary to fix everything, but I don't think revolution is more realistic than passing ranked choice voting, because i'm not braindead. The fact is, passing ranked choice would still be of great benefit to the working class, just because it doesn't become your ideal utopia overnight doesn't mean ranked choice doesn't matter at all and isn't worth doing.
By your own logic, if no policy has ever benefitted the american people without a revolution, why did the ACA pass?
I've seen your article, I doubt it will happen. The ACA was passed in the most incomplete and gutted form possible that dramatically benefitted the pharmaceutical industry.
And no, I'm a Marxist, not a Utopian. I understand that building takes time, I just understand that we have little control of what gets passed without outside pressure.
It's probably best not to bother - these people want things as shitty as possible as fast as possible to make the revolution happen sooner or some shit
No they don't, they just feel hopeless because meaningful change should be easy because a lot of the solutions are really fucking obvious but the MAGA side of the american people are actually mentally handicapped, and the democrat side is made moderate by their existence so almost nothing ever gets accomplished and it makes it feel like nothing CAN be accomplished.
The problem, of course, is that they have opted for the self-destructive course and lash out uselessly at people who want change but have been forced to look at the reality of the situation and try to reduce damage as much as possible.
What they are doing now, calling anyone who votes Democrat a genocide supporter, is a prime example of that useless lashing out, as it isn't productive, particularly in a rather small online space.
That is the part that gets me. They are our side's version of MAGA-stupid. Their end goals align with us and their heart is in the right place (for our views, as MAGA is for their side's), but they run on pure emotion and ignorance of the systems the real world has to operate in. In their rush for change they are happy to destroy their country and demolish the party that would move to their ends. Like going to a team checkers tournament and putting down chess pieces because they are stronger and give you more options, solid enough logic...then being disqualified and flipping the table and shitting on the others on your team trying to play good checkers. You still lose, your team is now down by one, and no one is playing chess...oh, and the other team promised to burn down the hall if they win.
Honestly, it has gotten to the point that I am certain most of them are just working for the other side. It is easier to believe and isn't unrealistic by any stretch.
Yeah...at best they're just useful idiots for the powers that be to exploit/point out as "look they are all crazy."
Having dealt with them, they seem utterly committed to both parties being bad because they both serve capitalist ends and the ruling class (which is true tbh), but then fail to grasp that while both sides aren't great, one side is at least doing SOMETHING positive while the other is actively trying to destroy things.
Just from a climate standpoint, at least the Dems are passing some kind of legislation about green energy and agree it exists, whereas the Republicans deny it and want to cut all remaining protections. This leaves us with two options: either these people want things to get worse out of some desire for change acceleration (yikes), or they really are just that stupid and can't see any difference.
But also, you are literally killing Palestinians by saying these things - join me in waggling my finger at the government to feel better about yourself!
Except where it IS implemented... Like legalizing weed, same slow ass path. A few liberal areas do it, slow or scared folks see it is beneficial, it spreads, it becomes a topic at the federal level and has caught on enough that it is just an inevitably....assuming the government doesn't somehow become christofascist because of some ignorant morons....but that is an edge case.
This does not logically follow. Policy is not implemented because it is "popular" or "talked about," but because it serves a material interest to the corporate donors of the DNC and GOP.
Is that your analysis of fascism? That it exists because of Chrisitanity, and Christianity exists because someone thought of it?
Fascism is Capitalism in decay. It's a violent defense mechanism, not a mold that infects people's minds. America is heading down the fascist path regardless of who is in power because Capitalism is dying.
First bit is what has actually happened. Second bit isn't "an analysis" and your last paragraph would have Voltare rolling, but also isn't relevant. Out of morbid curiosity, I'd love to hear your fantasy world path forward for the country.
It benefits the DNC and GOP to let minor implementations of a toothless change pass so that people feel like they are making a differance.
Second bit is absolutely analysis, you claimed fascism happens if the fascists get elected. Where did the fascists come from, and why would they get elected?
As for a path forward, I'm a Communist, revolution is necessary. Join an org like FRSO or PSL.
Which successful communist country should your America emulate?
Communism isn't about picking a model and copying it, that idea was abandoned in the 1800s. Engels wrote an entire essay on it, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. We can look to AES states and see where they found success and failure, but no AES state thus far has come from anything comparable to the 2024 US Empire's unique material conditions and productive structures, so obviously we can't copy any one country one to one, nor would we want to.