Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich says victory in Gaza will mean the enclave being "entirely destroyed," Palestinians leaving for other countries.
Maybe people wouldn’t call him “Genocide Joe” if he hadn’t backed a genocide. I always find it amazing that people blame the voters, instead of blaming the people with the power, the platform, and the money, who chose genocide over winning the election.
I always find it amazing that people blame the voters
I think people are blaming the people who didn’t vote. They thought they were sending the message “I don’t like genocide”, but that was ignorant of them.
The message they sent was “Eh, either is fine. I’m fine with Trump or Harris. Whatever”. And then they took the moral high ground for doing so.
Which I also find understandable. I disagree with non-voters, but if both choices are terrible, and fight against what you want, I understand why people wouldn’t want to vote.
The proper way to communicate an opinion that “both choices are terrible” is to make your way to the polling station and either vote for something other than those two bad choices, or to decline or spoil your ballot.
Not voting says “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”.
People think it means “Give me something other than these two”, but it takes more effort to communicate that message.
Political activism requires effort, and it requires effort the right way. Not voting is political inaction.
I mostly agree with you, which is why I voted 3rd party, and I still recommend that others vote. But voting can take a lot of time and effort, which most people are short on. I think a lot of people would vote, if they thought their vote counted, but with the two major parties we have, it clearly doesn’t.
I see it as less of “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”, and more of “Both of you fight against what I want, why would I bother”
Maybe people wouldn’t call him “Genocide Joe” if he hadn’t backed a genocide. I always find it amazing that people blame the voters, instead of blaming the people with the power, the platform, and the money, who chose genocide over winning the election.
I think people are blaming the people who didn’t vote. They thought they were sending the message “I don’t like genocide”, but that was ignorant of them.
The message they sent was “Eh, either is fine. I’m fine with Trump or Harris. Whatever”. And then they took the moral high ground for doing so.
Which I also find understandable. I disagree with non-voters, but if both choices are terrible, and fight against what you want, I understand why people wouldn’t want to vote.
The proper way to communicate an opinion that “both choices are terrible” is to make your way to the polling station and either vote for something other than those two bad choices, or to decline or spoil your ballot.
Not voting says “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”.
People think it means “Give me something other than these two”, but it takes more effort to communicate that message.
Political activism requires effort, and it requires effort the right way. Not voting is political inaction.
I mostly agree with you, which is why I voted 3rd party, and I still recommend that others vote. But voting can take a lot of time and effort, which most people are short on. I think a lot of people would vote, if they thought their vote counted, but with the two major parties we have, it clearly doesn’t.
I see it as less of “I can’t be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine”, and more of “Both of you fight against what I want, why would I bother”
I understand why some people kill their families and then kill themselves.
I’ll still put forth that it’s bad, destructive, and wrong.
Bad analogies are bad