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.
Holding a gun to your head is “not doing anything”?
Are Democrats holding a gun to your head? Or are they saying “if you leave him alone with your stuff he’s going to steal it, you better leave me alone with your stuff as I won’t steal it.”
“Could you lock up my stuff so he doesn’t steal it?”
“No, I’m just not going to touch your stuff.”
I’m still angrier at the person who is actively trying to steal my stuff.
Yes. They are called police, the gun isn’t figurative.
But if you want to change metaphors:
They then invite the other guy over and help them steal it, but blame it on the other guy and say “we tried to stop it”. Who would you be more angry with?
How exactly did they “invite the other guy over and help him steal it”?
Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.
Kamala Harris is actively campaigning with Dick Cheney.
Electoral districts are drawn via bipartisan committee.
This is ultimately the problem with metaphors… What specifically are you looking for to confirm or deny?
It’s the Senate that approves nominations to the supreme Court.
Of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade:
Amy Coney Barrett was approved by a Republican controlled Senate.
Samuel A. Alito was approved in 2006 by a Republican controlled Senate.
Brett Kavanaugh was approved in 2018 by a Republican controlled Senate.
Neil M. Gorsuch was approved in 2017 by a Republican controlled Senate.
Clarence Thomas was approved in 1991 by a Democratic controlled Senate.
4 out of 5 of the Supreme Court justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade were approved by Republican majorities. Two of which happened after the Republicans used their majority to block Obama from being able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. The one approved by Democrats happened 33 years ago when American Politics were significantly less partisan.
This is why I pushed you to stop speaking in metaphor and say something factual, because once you did you proved you were not speaking about actual reality.
Republicans abuse power to push through their agenda, and your response to that is to allow Republicans to continue to have enough power to continue to abuse the system while you blame Democrats for not stopping them. Your arguments make no sense in reality so you have to hide them behind metaphor.
“Why didn’t Democrats stop them”? Because they did not have the seats to do so. Refusing to give them seats won’t allow them to stop Republicans from overturning the next civil right while they continue to turn back the clock on progress.