Not voting for genocide, explained

Comments

• leftytighty@slrpnk.net ⁨46⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

  Where are all the Democrats saying that Democrats would be anti-genocide after the election?

  Guess who is still in power, and guess who just backed out of their ultimatum and refused to reduce military aid to Israel even after they failed to let aid in.

  source
• TachyonTele@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Computer: You have chosen More Genocide. Have a nice day.

  source
• rtxn@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Careful, if the Enlightened Centrists discover your post, they might write some comments about how broken the upvote/downvote system is!

  source
• lemmingthelemmers@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

  Imagine thinking this is clever.

  The party who funded the wholesale destruction of Gaza is somehow the “less genocide party”.

  People get your head out of your asses. This is embarassing as a human being.

  source

  • spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨24⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    The party who funded the wholesale destruction of Gaza is somehow the “less genocide party”.

    The funding was passed with bipartisan support, and always has. The funding is also supposed to have guardrails that limit it being used for genocide, and while the Dems are ineffectual at actually enforcing those guardrails Trump has already said that he wants Israel to finish the job and tends to follow through on his worst statements.

    Anyone who chose not to vote for the possibility of less genocide (on top of a million other negative things that will come out of a Trump presidency) chose more genocide.

    source
  • inv3r510n@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    It’s so embarrassing. Both American political parties are enthusiastically pro genocide.

    source

    • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨39⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      Let’s leave aside all of Kamala’s statements condemning Netanyahu and his genocide for a moment. And let’s instead ask whether you’re capable of perceiving the difference between one genocide and three. That difference is millions of lives. Do millions of lives matter to you, or are they just a statistic, inseparable from the thousands already dead in Gaza?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  TBF, the first two choices would have to be “a lot of genocide” and “much much more genocide”.

  source

  • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    If Kamala had been elected, the left would have been free to slam her on the Gaza issue, AND she would have been free to break from Biden and say “fuck you” to Netanyahu. She had to toe the line during the election and so did we. Once the election was won, we could have rallied. We’d have been united finally, and she wouldn’t have needed Biden anymore. Now instead of pressuring a sympathetic president to end a genocide, we have to arm ourselves to die fighting a fascist president. There is no more path to less genocide. That path closed. All three genocides are gonna happen.

    Zelensky is now trying to arm his country with nukes because he knows he can’t rely on America. Drag is talking to politicians in drag’s country about refugee visas for America. We’re all getting ready for mitigation and survival. We could have all been focusing on the Gaza issue instead. We could have done something.

    source

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Your comment is complete fantasy. Nothing would change under Harris.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • simple@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      LOL no. The democrats are entirely supportive of israel despite the occasional virtue signaling. I don’t understand why people would put Kamala on a pedistal and say maybe she’s different.

      Once the election was won, we could have rallied. We’d have been united finally, and she wouldn’t have needed Biden anymore.

      This is not how real life works.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • lemmingthelemmers@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Sounds like that since you didn’t get the "pponent you wanted you are able to lay down the resistance.

      I wonder how far that fight would have gone if Holocaust Harris had won lol

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • _stranger_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Last two choices are the same.

    source
  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    And the third choice would have to be “either one”

    source
• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

  Is this advocating voting third party? Because that isn’t how first past the post works, third parties won’t win.

  source

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Is this advocating voting third party?

    The exact opposite.

    Because that isn’t how first past the post works, third parties won’t win.

    Image

    That’s why the ambivalent option is the 3rd one, because the only two options they could win are bad.

    source