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 😊.

  • Skua
    link
    fedilink
    77 hours ago

    What will Trump escalate it to? Double genocide?

    Genuinely, have you read any of the man’s comments? He is criticising the Biden administration for being too harsh on Israel. To quote him: ““From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate ceasefire, always demanding ceasefire”. However bad things currently are, Trump’s openly-stated position on that horrific situation is that Israel needs to go in harder.

    • @TonoManza@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 hours ago

      To quote him: ““From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate ceasefire, always demanding ceasefire”.

      Okay? Do you usually treat what Trump says as gospel? …Do you think she got a ceasefire or successfully restrained Israels genocidal ambitions so far?

      Materially, what is the difference between them.

      “Genocide but sad” vs “Genocide and happy”, I’m not choosing Genocide period.

      However bad things currently are, Trump’s openly-stated position that horrific situation is that Israel needs to go in harder.

      Things are genocide, Harris’ openly stated positions are horrific and enabling of a genocide we have seen be carried out.

      Kamala Harris is actively engaging in genocide and it’s worked for over a year, you’re engaging in hypotheticals on it getting worse based off Trump’s words. Perhaps Trump’s incompetence would even lead to a forced end to the genocide if we are engaging in hypotheticals, in fact, I’d wager thats much more likely than Harris suddenly switching from a genocider to a compassionate human being and ending it.

      • Skua
        link
        fedilink
        46 hours ago

        Do you usually treat what Trump says as gospel?

        In so far as it being a reflection of his intentions when otherwise entirely plausible? Yeah, sure. This isn’t him drawing on a hurricane map with a pen.

        “Genocide but sad” vs “Genocide and happy”, I’m not choosing Genocide period.

        Fifty thousand dead Palestinians is fifty thousand too many - or however many the real number is by now - but there are two million Palestinians in Gaza, and three million in the West Bank. Despite how bad it already is, this can still get so, so much worse.

        Your claim to not choose genocide is, in fact, a choice to let the rest of the country decide without your input. If Harris’ lukewarm opposition saves literally any Palestinian lives whatsoever relative to the alternative, that’s worth more than someone feeling smug about not voting. I don’t know about you, but I think that the most ethical choice, if you are voting solely on the matter of Palestine, is whichever option is materially best for actual Palestinians even if that option is still horrible

        you’re engaging in hypotheticals on it getting worse based off Trump’s words

        Are you suggesting it is not reasonable to judge a politician based on the things they say?

        But don’t worry, because I’m also judging him on his actions when he was president last time. Like pardoning American war criminals, massively increasing the amount of drone strikes conducted, assassinating an Iranian general, recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, attempting to extort Ukraine for his own political gains, and actively backing the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. And as a reminder, even the Biden administration dropped support for that last one. He’s as belligerent as any American president and no hypotheticals are needed to demonstrate that. So when he says he wants Israel to do more in Gaza? Yeah I consider that a genuine and meaningful threat to the millions of Palestinians that haven’t been killed yet, and I will absolutely take Harris’ nothing response over that.

        So on what basis do you think that Trump is the preferable option?