this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
327 points (83.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43958 readers
926 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 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who's been actively supporting a genocide?

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What message would we be sending if our replacement for them is a guy that wants Isreal to "finish the job" with it? Killing fewer people matters more than accountability

[–] small44@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

There is not a big difference between one who say finish the job and one who doesn't say it but give every resources for Israel to finish the job

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do you think electing Trump will be read as "wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights" by the world?

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Electing Trump means Harris loses, which means that enough voting Americans believe that genocide is unacceptable to have held her as accountable as our system allows. It will be read as better than the alternative. Electing Harris means that we've been sold on genocide by a campaign that has embraced the Cheneys of all people.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

... Or more likely, when the guy who was even more anti-Palistine manages to win the election, their takeaway will be to adopt some of those more-anti-Palistine policies and sentiments because they were apparently more popular. You've got the overton window backwards

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 1 month ago

That certainly seems to be the thinking of the Harris campaign.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.

Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.