• Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.

    To make it simple, let’s assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and “finish” their genocide in Gaza: 98.9

    Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn’t go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32

    Now it isn’t great that the Harris number isn’t zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden’s outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that’s in his mind and not in front of him.

    So first up in a triage… You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I’d then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.

    After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel’s genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you’ll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.

    Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein’s own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.

    • AliSaket
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 seconds ago

      I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.

      My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.