this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
242 points (80.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43681 readers
2709 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 😊.

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Drusas@fedia.io 55 points 1 day ago (41 children)

They believe that taking a moral stand against the Democrats, who are supporting Israeli genocide, is worth it even if that means that Trump, who even more fervently supports Israeli genocide, becomes president.

[–] coolusername@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

nice hasbara

load more comments (40 replies)
[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 86 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Majority of the people who are saying this are Arab-Americans. They know how bad Trump will be, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Biden back in 2020. Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they've become numb and just stopped caring. There have been repeated instsnces of Democrats actually silencing them from speaking up as well. They've adopted a scorched earth mentality and are deciding to send a giant "fuck you" to Harris and the entire Democratic party.

And the Democrats are also allowing Israel to do whatever they want. There's not much of a difference between the two on this topic.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 day ago (7 children)

There is a difference between them on this topic.

If Trump were in office now, every liberal here would be screaming for the genocide to end and trying to understand how anyone could let this happen.

With Biden in office and his VP as candidate, they are trying to sell you on their candidate rather than working against the genocide.

[–] macabrett@lemmy.ml 8 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

That's the thing. I see a more likely scenario where the genocide is hindered under Trump. Not because Trump opposes it, but because it would suddenly become fashionable for liberals to oppose it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've actually seen some Muslim American leader (not sure who, maybe the mayor of Dearborn?) saying something like this. At least with Republicans in charge democrats would need to oppose them instead of gleefully supporting the genocide. Not sure how much this logic checks out, but it's a thing I guess.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 day ago (10 children)

The logic definitely checks out. It was far easier to mobilize and educate mainstream liberals under Trump. They have gone to sleep under Biden and become fully accepting of what the administration does. They might say they don't approve in a poll or something, but get them to leave the house? Only the college students can be mobilized at this time.

[–] coolusername@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

this is strangely true? but I can see the feds (who control the media) pivot narratives again where trump is still bad, but what he's doing is okay because (hasbara such as beheaded babies & mass rape claims, false flag, atrocity propaganda). feds aren't very intelligent. they do the same shit over and over again.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, the first time the press core deigned to call him "presidential" was when he launched rockets at Syria. The second time was when he assassinated Suleimani.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PanArab@lemm.ee -4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Her stance is practically indistinguishable from Trump's and enables Israel to continue the genocide.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk -1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

It feels like watching Trump burn the middle east to the ground instead of Harris would be cold comfort for anyone proud of not actively voting for a different genocide abetting candidate. There is no anti-genocide candidate, sadly, but one party has at least the shadow of a conscience that can be pressured later.

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

What has the current administration actually stopped Israel from doing? Every line in the sand has been crossed and there have been no consequences, trump won't be worse for Palestine than Kamala

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›