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.
Yes, you are repeatedly stating this while seemingly ignoring that Kamala and Biden are already doing genocide, because it doesn’t get worse than that. If Kamala isn’t stopping the genocide or even holding Israel back, how will Trump be worse? What could Trump possibly do that’s worse than genocide? “Finish the job” vs “finish the job faster”, either way the same result, genocide.
As I stated in my last message, if Trump gets in and starts directing Israel how to do the genocide and demands they do it faster, there’s a real chance his incompetence leads to its failure. Whereas under Kamala Biden it’s already been ongoing for over a year.
If we have to choose between “slow effective genocide” vs “fast sloppy genocide” I’m choosing the sloppy one. As it has the best chance of failing. (I don’t support this argument of choosing a “lesser genocide” though, just stating the flaws in your argument).
They most likely insulted you because they read what you wrote, the same reason I didn’t respond initially.
Your entire previous reply to me is ignoring context almost to the point of strawmanning and borderline genocide denial*. It comes off as someone who doesn’t actually care about the issue and just wants to get their talking points out about why genocidal Trump is bad and genocidal Democrats are good.
*edit for clarification: the “Trump would do it faster” is an echo of the “it’s not a genocide because they could destroy Palestine anytime and haven’t” form of denialism
America absolutely has the capacity to supply far more equipment than it already is, and it has a track record of engaging in bombing campaigns in its own right in similar situations. Like in Yemen, under Trump. I do not want America to start bombing Palestine directly as well
If they get to finish the job. The less quickly they can finish it, the more of a chance there is of Israeli and/or international public support turning against it enough to actually change it. The American election is not going to do that by itself because both realistic candidates are pro-Israel, so there is no point in making decisions that only work if they completely stop the genocide by voting or not voting.
You clearly also think that there is a chance of it being stopped since that’s your foundation for saying faster genocide is preferable. I don’t think your logic holds there, because I don’t see why a faster one would be likely to fail faster. On that basis, slower means fewer dead Palestinians.
Literally every point I made was explicitly rooted in what I believe will result in the fewest Palestinian deaths.
I accused them of not reading because they started off by trying to nitpick me by restating the exact same thing I pointed out literally in the same sentence.
deleted by creator