So, what course of action are you proposing? Vote Trump? Vote 3rd party? Don’t vote?
What’s your intended / expected outcome?
Voting 3rd party is a great idea. One that doesn’t support Genocide that is.
A normally blue voter voting 3rd party is indirectly helping Trump win the election. Do you think Trump’s Israel policy is going to be better than Harris’s?
Trump will be the same on israel. Are you going to reward the Democrats for 10 months of Genocide?
There are four options for American voters: vote red, vote blue, vote third party, or don’t vote at all.
Voting red is just bad. I highly doubt that the Gaza situation would get any better if Trump gets in, but I know for a fact that a lot of things will get much worse.
Voting third party is a wasted effort. Sure, every sane person would prefer different people to run America, but the the shit fptp system means they’ll never get any traction. In another election voting third party could be worth it, since a third party might slowly get more support, but not this one.
Not voting is just pointless. That’s just choosing to not impact anything.
That only leaves voting blue. It’s not great, but it’s the only option left.
Soll explain to us how voting for any third party would change anything for the better.
They don’t support Genocide.
Explain how voting for Democrat would change anything for the better instead.
It’s weird how we can try to explain this to people for months straight and they’re still posting stupid memes about it.
It’s weird how you call your country a democracy but are forced to make choices you’re not at all comfortable with.
Because they have a LOT of money riding on convincing people not to vote blue. Gee, I wonder who benefits from that most.
I don’t think they are stupid. They are coping with the hand we are dealt.
I highly doubt that the Gaza situation would get any better if Trump gets in, but I know for a fact that a lot of things will get much worse.
What would Trump do that the Dems are not already doing? Trump would be a genocidal monster, yes, but we have DNC goers literally mocking Pro-Palestinian protestors and covering their ears:
There are four options for American voters: vote red, vote blue, vote third party, or don’t vote at all.
Nope, there are an infinite number of options. If a math question is “what number is greater than 10?” And the Dems said 4 and the Reps said 2, that doesn’t mean the Dems are correct. Voting will not save us, so we must move outside the realm of electoralism. Join an org, build up dual power, replace the DNC and GOP by force.
But those aren’t mutually exclusive things. Voting for the Dems doesn’t prevent you from doing those other things in the meantime.
If you only have two real choices that will affect the outcome and one of them is better than the other, voting for neither of them just makes things harder for those that would have made it slightly better. More compromises have to be made and that means the situation can’t improve.
I see constant posts about how Trump splitting their base is going to mean the end of the Republican party but that seems very short sighted. It is a simple matter of natural selection, and in a two party system only two parties will ever exist. It also inherently gravitates to very close races between those parties. Any split of the Republican party might cause a term or two of chaos, but it is just a matter of time before something fills the vacuum and balance is restored.
Each party would prefer to move further towards their end of the spectrum, but they are forced to move their values (or choose more centrist candidates) until they have enough of a majority to win.
Gerrymandering, the electoral college, what’s left of the judicial branch, apathetic voters, parasitic third parties, and wedge issues have allowed the Republicans to shift further right while maintaining their power. The only possible response to that from the Dems is to also shift right as well. If they didn’t the Republicans would just end up with trifectas or super majorities.
Trump was also able to shift racist/authoritarian/nationalist policies much further right by shifting his fiscal policies further left than what Republicans normally would do. His whole campaign was based on deficit spending (tax cuts without any real cost cutting, stimulus COVID spending, etc), public works (multi billion dollar worthless walls), and his focus on blue collar workers (not directly supporting unions but he pushed anti China + US manufacturing boosts).
Every vote for a third party is one less vote that the Republicans need to gain, which is a little more right that they can slide and maintain power, and since natural selection links the two parties it is also a little further right that the Democrats have to slide to maintain their power as well.
If you want to shift things left voting third-party won’t do it. Third parties have no power to make changes and never will in our current system.
Voting for the only party that has a chance of winning and is willing to make voting reforms to improve that system is the only hope of shifting the parties to the left where the actual political center of the country lies.
Voting for anyone else is illogical and won’t prevent this genocide. Protests, and organizations can maybe help in the short term to push the Democrats to change course but it also disenfranchises more voters to not show up, and pushes more to vote for third parties… And so the snowball tumbles down the hill to the right gaining momentum leaving us with frankly no good choice.
Voting is the least important part of the political process. America is not a democracy, voting merely serves to legitimize the state with an illusion of choice.
Maybe this is overly wishful thinking, but I do think there is enough data analysis on how people vote that it could be real: if a large body of people with a history of voting blue vote in this election and vote blue down the ballot but omit the president, or have a third party for the president instead, then that might actually send a message to the Democrats that they are fucking up their candidate selection badly, and make them at least marginally more likely to cater to the left when choosing candidates in the future.
That said I am not sure I can condone this tactic in good faith in this particular election given the alternative, but part of me feels like the right will perpetually have more and more abhorrent alternatives and there needs to be a line somewhere, and if it’s not at genocide then I honestly don’t know where it is.
No matter how you look at it all the options are bad. At least Tim being slightly left of Kamala shows Democrats slightly more willing to negotiate with disenfranchised left voters than chasing nebulous farther right independents. Not left enough to condemn genocide though so a very minor distinction
Do you disagree with the idea that the “lesser evil” has been getting steadily more evil?
Kamala has promised to keep supplying weapons for the Genocide. There’s no denying it anymore.
So did Trump.
Trump, who routinely touts his support of Israel more broadly, has reportedly said he supports Israel in its continued “war on terror” after the October 7 attack by Hamas.
This part always seems to be forgotten every time this comes up. Voting for Trump won’t suddenly stop it. He’ll either send just as much or more.
Real life is not a movie where the bad guys all conveniently wear the same uniform
A suit and tie.
Look, I don’t like Kamala either and I think continuing to supply weapons is awful, obviously. But she’s the only realistic option at this point. You can still protest the genocide in Gaza AFTER the election (and I fully support you doing so, Hell I might even meet you at one), but look at it this way: if Kamala wins, you at least have a chance to make a change over there, but if Trump wins again, every Palestinian is as good as dead. Do I like either option? No! Do I think our elections are a good system? No! Am I going to vote for Kamala anyway? Yes! Because at this point, the choice is between shooting ourselves in the foot or in the temple
Wanting people to not vote for the only option that can beat Trump?
Wonder who that benefits… 🤔🤔🤔
It’s the only realistic option at this point. You can still protest the genocide in Gaza AFTER the election (and I fully support you doing so, Hell I might even meet you at one), but look at it this way: if Kamala wins, you have a chance to make a change over there, but if Trump wins again, every Palestinian is as good as dead. Do I like either option? No! Do I think our elections are a good system? No! Am I going to vote for Kamala anyway? Yes! Because at this point, the choice is between shooting ourselves in the foot or in the temple
That is a valid question in isolation, but bringing it up in discussions on where to vote is not leading to discussions or actionable improvements. It only functions to push voter disenfrachisement.
Not saying it’s your intention, but it is your effect.
Voting least bad is important. Don’t discourage it.
Working for better voting options is also important. Do push for that too, but find a constructive setting for it.
Seriously believe even on Lemmy there’s gonna be weaponized sockpuppets/bots that try to speak the language in order to discourage voting: “Oh if you’re really based you’ll just protest by staying home.”
“You’re a neoliberal shill if harm reduction is your strategy rather than overthrowing the system and rebuilding it into an enlightened paradise overnight.”
I fancy myself an anarchist in ideals, but I’m sure as heck filling a ballot for Kamala so I don’t have to start taking my “bugout country” plans AS seriously yet…
For a lot of reasons, but if the opposition wins, everybody who works for a living is gonna get waffle-stomped, and the only ones who will get stomped harder are those who can’t work for a living.
We gotta play the hand we’re dealt and deal with the biggest fires first…
