What’s funny is how frequently I get downvoted to oblivion for daring to suggest that genocide isn’t acceptable in any circumstances, including when voting for US presidents.
It’s you guys that seem to be ok with it when your guy is the one supporting it.
When confronted with two evils, one must choose the lesser evil if there is no realistic alternative; as letting the greater evil in helps literally no one.
Is that too complex? Do I need to simplify it further?
“Genocide is good if ‘the lesser evil’ is doing it!”
You claim genocide is always evil yet you make excuses for it. What’s the difference between an authoritarian dictatorship carrying out genocide and a plutocracy giving you a Fisher-Price voting ballot that will result in genocide no matter which option you pick?
Kindly inform me of the non-genocide vote that is more effectual than throwing my vote away in the United States.
Palestine will be gone long before third party is elected in America, or the revolution happens. An optimist would hope that the genocide in Gaza would initiate mass resistance in america, but a realist knows that it won’t happen in time to stop the Israeli march on Gaza.
In the meantime I’m putting my bets on the somewhat-less-genocide guy while continuing to advocate for third parties and the revolution and sending support however I can, personally.
We live in a broken system that forces you to vote for politicians who believe things that you don’t believe in, this is the reality of American politics.
Pro tip; you can continue to protest and advocate AND vote for the lesser of two evils. We don’t live in a vacuum we’re voting for Joe Biden suddenly renders you his full political supporter. Voting is a tool not a declaration of fealty.
You can acknowledge that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place without defaulting to doing what amounts to nothing and complaining that others won’t do nothing in protest with you.
This is also ignoring the fact that there are real consequences for the outcome of the election for those who live in the United States itself.
Not every person has the privilege to care about the outcomes of the US election internationally when they are struggling to survive under the current leadership.
Would you tell these people to vote for the politician that changes nothing or the politician that makes things worse?
I wish politics was so simple as " politician supports bad thing and we all stopped voting for him ". It is unfortunately not.
If we had STAR voting I could give these two guys a 1 and a 2 while progressives all get 8 to 10. Unfortunately, that isn’t a reality we exist in. In reality only one of these two guys will win.
There is no realistic scenario this year where a third party candidate receives enough EC votes to become president. Like both guys would have to die before the election and the third party would have to be a popular household name.
Given that these two are the only realistic candidates, my only option on this issue is throwing my vote in the trash (expressing that one doesn’t give a fuck how many Palestinians die, no preference either way) or voting for the person I think will kill fewer Palestinians.
What’s funny is how frequently I get downvoted to oblivion for daring to suggest that genocide isn’t acceptable in any circumstances, including when voting for US presidents.
It’s you guys that seem to be ok with it when your guy is the one supporting it.
Genocide is always evil.
When confronted with two evils, one must choose the lesser evil if there is no realistic alternative; as letting the greater evil in helps literally no one.
Is that too complex? Do I need to simplify it further?
“Genocide is good if ‘the lesser evil’ is doing it!”
You claim genocide is always evil yet you make excuses for it. What’s the difference between an authoritarian dictatorship carrying out genocide and a plutocracy giving you a Fisher-Price voting ballot that will result in genocide no matter which option you pick?
Kindly inform me of the non-genocide vote that is more effectual than throwing my vote away in the United States.
Palestine will be gone long before third party is elected in America, or the revolution happens. An optimist would hope that the genocide in Gaza would initiate mass resistance in america, but a realist knows that it won’t happen in time to stop the Israeli march on Gaza.
In the meantime I’m putting my bets on the somewhat-less-genocide guy while continuing to advocate for third parties and the revolution and sending support however I can, personally.
We live in a broken system that forces you to vote for politicians who believe things that you don’t believe in, this is the reality of American politics.
Pro tip; you can continue to protest and advocate AND vote for the lesser of two evils. We don’t live in a vacuum we’re voting for Joe Biden suddenly renders you his full political supporter. Voting is a tool not a declaration of fealty.
You can acknowledge that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place without defaulting to doing what amounts to nothing and complaining that others won’t do nothing in protest with you.
This is also ignoring the fact that there are real consequences for the outcome of the election for those who live in the United States itself.
Not every person has the privilege to care about the outcomes of the US election internationally when they are struggling to survive under the current leadership.
Would you tell these people to vote for the politician that changes nothing or the politician that makes things worse?
I wish politics was so simple as " politician supports bad thing and we all stopped voting for him ". It is unfortunately not.
There isn’t one. That is my point.
If we had STAR voting I could give these two guys a 1 and a 2 while progressives all get 8 to 10. Unfortunately, that isn’t a reality we exist in. In reality only one of these two guys will win.
There is no realistic scenario this year where a third party candidate receives enough EC votes to become president. Like both guys would have to die before the election and the third party would have to be a popular household name.
Given that these two are the only realistic candidates, my only option on this issue is throwing my vote in the trash (expressing that one doesn’t give a fuck how many Palestinians die, no preference either way) or voting for the person I think will kill fewer Palestinians.