• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    there are two facts about this election

    1. there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
    2. both candidates have a bad stance on the genocide

    so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?

    my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have… which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?

    Harris might be responsive, and let’s be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it’s definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      9 hours ago

      which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?

      neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.

      i only voted for kamala because she’s a woman and even though she’s an awful candidate at least we can get it out of our collective system, show little girls they can be president, and the neoliberal status quo is probably still better than Trump

      i’m not entirely sure on that because I think Kamala is more likely to lead us into a war with Russia… but Trump is more volatile in general I think

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          40 minutes ago

          i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing. there’s been so many women throughout history that could have been judith pulgars, politically speaking, and ended up getting pushed into more subservient positions

          that’s the main reason. i dont think that’s an awful reason

          as for the russian war thing, i rather like living in a pre-nuclear-war society.

      • forrcaho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.

        This level of cynicism is unwarranted. Sure it might be low, but for Harris it’s at least 0.1%.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          with the current stranglehold the pro-Israeli lobby has on American politics (includes both GOP and DNC) even 0.1% is a stretch

          AIPAC even brags about it: https://aipacorg.app.box.com/s/t8vvqt7evxvgkzn5jktpwejate6oxo0y

          98% of AIPAC endorsed candidates won their election in 2022. if you are a politician and you say something mildly critical of Israel they will go to war with you and do everything so that your opponent wins

          Israel has figured out how to hack American democracy. There is no going back at this point. We are a pro-Israel country for the foreseeable future, regardless of which candidate wins this election or the next one or the next one

    • fuckdenialists@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      My argument is that the only good american is that dude who set himself on fire. You are a scumbag. You are no better than a german in the 30ies smelling the grilled flesh and thinking “this is fine, it’s still better than bolchevism”