Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?
Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?
And I'm being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don't understand it. Can someone please "steelman" that argument for me?
I know people who voted neither candidate because Trump was horrible and Harris was pro-choice. Single-issue voters are the death of democracy. Full stop.
I said months ago that we were going to "single issue" our way to Trump 2.0, and I've never ever wanted to be wrong more than when I said that.
Edit: Updated with receipts.
nearly all the single-issue voters on the right vote in lock-step unison, and have for decades.
democrats and progressives seem to just toss in the towel if they aren't getting everything they want, right now.
it takes time to build something great, it takes but a moment to destroy it all. welcome to total destruction.
Radicals ruin everything.
Thing is you can actually be radical. In a healthy democracy you need some small fringes to exert pressure, e.g. civil right activist groups and so on so that the government isn't able to just completely ignore portions of the population.
But to be effective as an activist you have to know when to put on pressure and when to unite. Malcolm X or Fred Hampton didn't go vote for David Duke just because MLK was a pacifist.
This was the wrong time to pressure because as always activists dramatically misread the levels of actual support for their cause and dramatically underestimate how much support the general populace gives the opposition.
Most people don't even agree on the very basic facts of reality or that such a thing can even exist and that for instance pretty certain observations made using the scientific method aren't just equally weighed to someone's opinion, how tf are you gonna expect to convince them of anything? What you gonna write some long post on it? Good luck - they literally cannot read.
Humanity is just a dogshit species. To even agree that we shouldn't stab ourselves in our proverbial balls with a proverbial milwaukee power drill - it takes like generations and most people are always for the status quo and the worst possible version of everything is the default we have to work from and with, it's just a cruel joke and it would be more existentially comforting if progress was outright impossible.
Only in a two-party system. Locked in a two party system is the death of it. At least introduce multiple rounds, to democratically elect the 2 contestants for the final round...
Only in a two-party system.
So you mean - like the system this election took place within?
Sometimes being a single issue voter happens because people just care that much about that one issue. But there’s a natural tendency for anyone’s decision to come down to one thing. Complex issues are complex, most people don’t know what’s right. But then they do have ONE thing that they consider black-and-white, so that influences their choice. It gives them something they feel they can say to others “I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone who XYZ…”
Because let’s face it: no one wants to hear your entire list of political calculations. People’s choices are absolutely influenced by thoughts of how they’ll justify themselves to the people they know. And having one big pithy thing to say is more convenient than a subtle position based on a score of factors.
Humans are social, emotional, idiosyncratic shortcut machines, not logic engines.
Since no one seems to be taking OP's question seriously, I'll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.
Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.
Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.
Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won't win.
Others still may believe that Trump's incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.
Finally, some people feel that voting won't matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.
I don't personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.
Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.
They never learn though.
They never learn though.
And we're out of chances for them to do so.
A lot of people did in fact set aside Gaza until Trump was stopped. As for those that didn't, they should have listened to Bernie Sanders. I did months ago and went all-in on Dem support. There were multiple times when I wrote up an angry post about US support of Israel and then didn't post it because I didn't want to turn a voter into a non-voter or worse a Trump supporter.
I understand their position of never rewarding ethnic cleansing and war crimes though. They chose to make sure the Dems know they would never "settle" for the illegal killing of civilians. The support for Israel made it especially hard for Arab Americans to vote Dem. It's difficult to support a party that has been in power during the whole conflict yet gives unconditional support for the internationally condemned murder of Arabs.
I'm sure a lot also felt disenfranchised by the bipartisan protest suppression and condemnation. Even in Dem states peaceful protesters were punished, and sometimes pro-Israeli protesters who attacked got away with it. Then there was the whole "vote with us or else" pressure that went on for months. Dissenters like the "uncommitted" voters were insulted by the party that wanted their unconditional support.
So it's not like it's completely insane. But as Sanders points out that position only makes things worse and has done so.
They believe it because that’s what people have been told to believe.
It should be glaringly obvious that trump’s implied policy that he will let Israel “finish the job” is far worse than the dems poor attempts at negotiating cease-fires or any other moderation on Israel’s aggression.
All the propaganda has focused on the democrat (in)action regarding Israel. Zero on trump’s plans.
That’s what the propaganda machine has been pushing.
That’s what the propaganda machine has been pushing.
And there was a strong push from the Russians.
what moderation ? biden literally told everyone that ukraine is not even getting a paperclip unless we give israel 20 billion as well. he continued saying israel has unconditional support while we were getting footage of pregnant women & kids getting shot at by idf or burning alive in hospital from use of incendiary shells. then harris repeated the same statement on live tv. all this while the working class has been struggling to survive, layoffs everywhere, and price of everything getting doubled.
its not something that can be washed with but that guy will do worse. you can look otherway but dnc basically threatened their voters base with more genocide if not elected. the fact we are even fighting over this instead mass protesting for biden and his administration to be prosecuted shows just how hollow & pathetic the dnc base has become.
That’s because nobody believes biden/Harris and for good reason. They’re lying, they have just as much of a plan to turn Gaza into prime oceanfront real estate for wealthy NYC metro area zionists with dual citizenship as the republicans. They’ll just paint the bombs with progress pride and blm flags while lying to your face about their intentions and speaking out of both sides of their mouth depending on their audience. It’s sickening. They’re both going to genocide Palestinians, does it really matter if they’re turned to glass in days or in weeks?
Before I start let me note that in the end this particular group of people didn't affect the election. Harris is on the way to losing all swing states. Her failure is much deeper than Gaza policy. Blaming anti-genocide voters for this is just copium.
With that out of the way, you can divide people with this position into two groups: Arab Americans and everyone else. Arab Americans are people who are feeling the genocide firsthand. So, obviously, they tried to appeal to the Harris campaign and get them to move from Biden's position on the topic. The result: They were either ignored or antagonized by Harris. That led to the abandon Harris campaign in Michigan and elsewhere. Harris considered those people acceptable casualties in her failure of a campaign, and so they were burnt out and the momentum behind the Uncommitted movement and others turned from "let's save our Palestinian brothers" to "fuck us and Palestine (because let's face it, that's basically what Harris was saying)? Then fuck you too". Harris thew them under the bus and was thrown under the bus in turn. Maybe not very logical, but a very predictable reaction. Harris treated Arab Americans with just that much contempt, and then she and her enablers had the gall to tell the people attending a funeral every other day to "shut up and vote for her".
Now as for everyone else, it's a more simple instance of taking a stand against a politician for doing something you cannot accept. Now there is a pragmatic idea here that if you allow the DNC to get away with this they'll think supporting genocide actually wins elections, or that their electorate are such pussies that it doesn't matter what they think. Add in the goal of pressuring Harris to drop that policy that was important at the start of the Harris campaign and of course the idea of not wanting to vote for genocide and this was the result.
Of course it's not all 100% logical, but there is logic here beyond "omg bad guy I no vote".
Now that the election is out of the way, maybe I can continue talking about this. I held my tongue during the past months, but I think now is a good time to think about this result.
While the result is unfortunate and disappointing, there are sides to it that aren’t all that bad. They pushed towards the right, pandering, and now the voters told them that this isn’t a winning strategy. I think it helps setting them straight for the future.
I think you put it very aptly. Of course it would’ve been best if Harris had won, but at least now we can think about it from a neutral perspective: Had she won despite all the right-pandering and genocide-enabling stances, it would either send the message that pandering to the right works, and the progressives are, indeed, either too small a group to listen to in the future too, or too much of pussies to listen to in the future, too — they’ll toe the line no matter what kind of shitty positions you take.
At least now they know that a change is needed. It’s almost unthinkable to lose to such a weird fascist populist that barely behaves cohesively. They did, by ignoring the progressives. That means something. At least it ought to.
Things don’t often change unless things hurt. If doing shitty things keeps working, nothing changes. But when things hurt, it opens some eyes at least. Forces re-evaluation on everyone’s part.
But that being said, this fucking sucks. Despite all the reasoning we can do to make it feel a bit better, this really should not have happened.
They played this exact same game in 2016 and lost and yet they learned nothing. What makes anyone think they're going to learn something this time? The DNC needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up to be a proper left party instead of this bullshit center-right garbage that they pretend is progressive or left.
EDIT: And I still held my nose and voted, because I will in fact take anything over fascism.
I'm not hopeful. I've already seen centrists and pundits saying that Harris lost because she's "too progressive" and that Dems need to move further right.
Given Dems' track record, I'm dreading 2028 is going to be JD Vance versus fucking RFK Jr. or Joe Manchin. At least the only silver lining out of THAT shitshow will be seeing the Democratic Party completely implode after completely alienating their voter base to become a carbon copy of the Republican Party (while Repub voters just keep voting R) and hopefully pave ground for an actual progressive party replace them, but that will hardly offset the horrors of 8 years of unrestrained fascism (assuming the left wins in 2032 🥲)
You're wrong that it didn't impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement. Slotkin won the senate race, but Trump won by a narrow margin. Independent votes and low turn out siphoned off enough to make that happen. Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too
You're wrong that it didn't impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement.
I mean maybe (I haven't seen the turnout numbers as opposed to protest/non-voters) but the point is that Harris lost before Michigan even finished counting. She could've won Michigan and she still wasn't winning this, is the point.
Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too
I mean yeah, because the DNC pushed an unelectable candidate whose position was a mix of "nothing will fundamentally change", wishy washy non-promises and right wing positions. I doubt even 10% of the 15 million in reduced turnout came from Uncommitted and similar movements. The DNC blew it; it's that simple.
in the end this particular group of people didn't affect the election.
Source for that statement?
The arguments against voting in the USA sound similar to the trolley problem
Some people wouldnt choose to be the reason of the death of one person even if doing nothing causes the death of multiple people
That just means you value your own ability to evade blame over the lives of real people.
Yeah but also they all die anyway. Nobody is "saved" in this situation. In fact, it's way worse now.
What's going to happen in Gaza is going to be horrifying.
It wasn't horrifying until now? Maybe they weren't white or part of your propaganda.
This is very american - these Gaza supporters protest the suffering of people thousands of miles away and yet think it is okay to bring suffering to everyone in his/her own street
Almost like they are paying for the people suffering thousands of miles away?
Do you have a brain by any chance?
Yes, this is how I felt. I would rather not choose to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' and pretend that's good. It's not just Gaza though, it's corporatism, war profiteering, and terrible policy.
I would rather see the system collapse and possibly die in the process than support another shitty government even if it's the less shitty one.
That's a horrible outlook, and I'm sorry you've been driven to that point. I understand, as I have been there before.
Now that I'm older, I realize that pulling the lever is the right thing to do as much as it hurts. I don't think letting apathy win and watching the government go full Fash was the correct choice, but I don't blame you, or others who decided the same. The system isn't going to collapse, though, it's just going to get a lot shittier for awhile.
It's the trolley problem. You see a trolley about to kill 5 people. You can pull a lever (vote) and make the trolley only kill 1. In this case, that 1 person is also in the lineup of 5. This distinction makes it obvious the only option is to pull the lever (vote).
They mistakenly believe that by pulling the lever they are complicit in the trolley. That by interacting with the trolley on the trolley's terms, they are consenting to the trolley's actions.
I used to believe that too once... Once.
I was disabused of that notion before 2012, but sadly not enough people were.
Inaction is also an action. You're always playing the game, might as well learn the rules.
No it's not. Both the trolley problem and the prisoners dilemma are individual event thought experiments.
Real life is different, it is continuous. The rational choice for an individual event can be very different than a continuous one.
Take the prisoner's dilemma (or game theory) for instance, it is the rational decision (nash equilibrium) to rat your fellow prisoner out but if you have to do it again and again, then the best strategy is to NOT rat out your fellow prisoner (only rat when they ratted you out in the last round).
Reality is often like this, and elections are also like this. It gets complicated real fast.
Voting is an individual event
This is actually a very good comparison, thank you.
I agree that people should've voted, but I disagree with this one-dimensional line of thinking. I can see the argument that by voting for the democrats their current behaviour and this fucked up system as a whole is warranted. It's not as simple as "why not vote, it costs you nothing". By voting this horrible "democracy" is legitimised and the democrats and the system will not change their approach. The US deserves a democracy that actually allows for representation instead of this duopoly of garbage and more garbage
Russian bots mostly, but also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won't affect them
Don't underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren't so bad while the Reps said they'd change things.
The changes will of course be worse, but if things are clearly shit, and someone keeps telling you that it's not that bad, you start to despise those people even if they're the better choice.
Don't underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren't so bad while the Reps said they'd change things.
Okay, but those aren't the single-issue Gaza voters OP was asking about.
Frankly, they should've been what OP was asking about though, because they were a way bigger factor (and always are, in every election, despite the Democrats abject refusal to acknowledge it).
also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won't affect them
I’m a privileged person who probably won’t be directly affected by another Trump presidency. Probably. Hopefully.
But anybody who genuinely holds that opinion, and doesn’t care what happens to everybody else, may as well just be a full-on trumper.
Sure, Russian bots. But Hasbara likely played a significant role too.
Non voters are just as responsible for the loss of democracy. They are not a single bit better than any MAGA even if they like to claim they are. They chose fascism over democracy
What's worse is they're now acting like they got one over on the Democratic party like "ha, stupid Democratic party. I bet they won't learn". Like what? You played YOURSELVES, you're the ones who are gonna suffer. You fucked yourselves over just to spite Harris? Wtf??
Yeah, I have so many discussion with non voters who sre fucking stupif. "But but Gaza!!" completely ignoring how Trump was escalating the conflict when he was in power and how he praised Netanyahu for his handling of it. If the think the dems are bad for Gaza they have not paid attention to republicans.
Those are people who are unable or unwilling to see the forest for the trees.
Like you. :-)
Steelman:
The US is currently a fascist, imperialist state. It has brutalized the global south, indigenous people, and POCs generally since its founding and will continue to do so unless the status quo is disrupted and changed significantly.
The Democratic party supports the same militaristic policies and the same neoliberal economic system that the Republicans do. The primary difference between the parties are various social issues that may make life somewhat better or worse for US citizens, but will never address the core problems of fascism, imperialism, and capitalism. Both parties support and protect the status quo. This status quo only benefits the bourgeois class and rich white people and harms literally hundreds of millions of others around the world.
The Democratic party is the only one of the two major parties that the Left has any degree of leverage over since the Democrats want the Left to vote for them. So, organizing to essentially boycott the Democratic party is a powerful method of protest that could effect real policy change. It is possibly the only effective method of protest left since the US police & surveilance state is cracking down on protests and the Left has no chance protesting violently against the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
The only way to make that threat matter to the Democratic party is to follow through if the demands aren't met, even - or especially - if it means a second Trump term.
The liberal establishment has ignored and abandoned the working class for decades while dangling the carrot of milktoast social democratic reforms that rarely come to pass, but they blame the same people they abandoned for not energetically voting for them. They say it is a moral imperative to vote for them, but they are incapable of bettering the lives of working class people.
Strawman:
It would hurt my feelings too much to vote for COPmala Harm-us. Plus, Trump would let Putin annex Ukraine. Also, I'd risk touching grass if I went outside to participate in bourgeois electoralism. Gross.
Reality:
You can, and should, do more than one thing. Voting for Kamala is effectively playing defense against outright, full-throated fascism a la Mussolini even if you'd still consider the US fascist - it is clearly worse under Republicans. So vote, play defense, AND organize to raise class consciousness, provide mutual aid, protest when possible, and contribute to socialist causes. Letting Trump win would be a bad move. But, ultimately it is not the Left's fault that he won. He won the popular vole and the electoral college vote by a large margin - larger than all third party socialist/socialist-adjacent candidates' votes combined.
This is a great explanation, well done.
Buddy, you haven't seen American fascism yet. Part of the problem is that people like you scream "fascist" so much that it's lost it's power. A fascist like Trump would have never been able to pull this off if that word hadn't been trivializec.
This was a thread about making the specific argument you're mad at me for making
Lemme tell the millions of children that have gone through the migrant camps, separated from their family, some of whom have disappeared, that their jailors aren't fascists. Let me tell the latino women who have been forcibly neutered without their knowledge or consent that they're trivializing fascism. Let's go to those who were detained in Abu Ghraib, if any of them are still alive, that their abduction, rape, and torture by laughing US soldiers doesn't count, it's what happens to americans that's worrying.
Honestly, this is the fucking smugness of somebody who knows they're safe as long as they mask, because they've been safe as fascists have massively incarcerated and enslaved black people, as they've made ghettos of bipoc neighborhoods, as far right terrorists have shot up black churches and gay bars and lynchings are back on the up and up. Because that was trivial, what's not trivial is if it can happen to them. Fuck dems fr.
Because if it wasn't Gaza, it would have been another excuse to not lift a lazy goddamned finger and still delude themselves into feeling "morally superior"while sitting on their fat mediocre asses at home.
Before Harris, they also leaned heavily on the "Sleepy Joe" bullshit and "two old white men up for election, who cares". Once the old "Sleepy Joe" element was removed from the equation, they had to find a way to keep their goddamned stubbornly lazy and ignorant narrative intact.
Now that the election is over, most of these "concerned and outraged" deadweight assholes will never think about Gaza and the plight of its' people again. And they will keep on feeling smug about themselves.
I know one of those people. they are now angry the left lost... 🙄
I'm not American, and I don't agree with these people either, but I don't think that calling them lazy and ignorant makes any sense. In the fucked up democracy of the US it's clear that the only way to get what you want for the coming 4 years is to vote for the least bad candidate. At the same time I can definitely understand that if you view both candidates was horrible, though one way more horrible than the other, you would feel conflicted about voting for either of them.
Let's do a thought experiment. Assuming both candidates are still roughly equally "popular". If both candidates wanted to start a genocide, but one would want to kill only 50% of the amount of innocents that the other would kill, how would you vote? Would you vote for the one who is overall the less bad option, which will in turn make you give your vote for something horrible. Or would you abstain and signal that the democracy as it currently stands has lost your confidence entirely, even if it means that on the short term the consequences might be way worse?
Not voting actually costs the democrats something, and should (if they want to win next time) force them to think how to better represent you next time.
It's fucked up that your democracy came to this. It has become an annoying game theory dilemma instead of voting for the candidate that you actually believe in. Our system here in the Netherlands is certainly also not perfect, since we have too many parties and too long coalition negotiations, but at least I feel like it represents people way better. Anyone can start a party and capture seat if they represent a large enough niche.
I said the same thing about people like you before the election, and I'll repeat it again. The laser focus on single issue voters was and will always be mostly an excuse to blame someone else.
To look at it another way, if this one issue actually decided the election, why didn't Harris change her strategy two months ago? ... Maybe it's because this wasn't the determining issue. Or it was, and her staff was incompetent. Take your pick.
OP asked for a steelman but good try
It is rich to criticize the Democrats for claiming moral superiority while doing nothing, as a justification for not voting for the candidate who would at least try to put a leash on what Israel is doing to Gaza.
If you want what's best for a suffering people, you should vote for the candidate not trying to give their oppressors a blank check. All of America is responsible for what the president we chose does next.
This is all that needs to be said on the subject.
This is fucking rich lmao.
You know who I always see busting their ass protesting, striking, aiding their fellow worker? Not fucking democrats, I'll tell you that. It's always third parties who get demonized for not voting for a fascist and then told they get what they deserve when they're out there serving as a shield against the worst of fascist violence. Americans are so politically illiterate it'd be funny if y'all would go down alone and not threaten to burn the rest of us down with you.
If you think there was a genuine argument to not vote for Harris over Gaza war crimes, you were amongst those successfully manipulated by Russia. That argument was entirely of America’s enemies’ making as a means to get Trump elected.
You are absolutely correct. The unfortunate fact is that propaganda works. Even if you know it is propaganda, it still works.
A bit like a placebo in that regard.
Honestly for a portion of the ones here online, I don't think they actually care that much about Gaza except as a convenient tool to attack Americans. It's academic to them. I don't expect it'll stop once Trump is in, they'll just switch to criticizing Americans overall. They're mostly leftist agitators, and I honestly think they hate moderate progressives the most, since we're trying to improve capitalism which makes it harder to undermine and destroy.
For people that actually do care, it's a personal, emotional argument about not being able to feel good about it, which I understand. It's a sort of trolley problem. If they don't vote, they kinda just walk away and the trolley runs over a bunch of people, but they don't have to watch and bear a sense of personal responsibility at that emotional level for being a part of it. It doesn't actually benefit Gaza, but there's only so much they could really do anyway.
People are tired of voting for the lesser evil. So now big evil won, and the idea is that that will teach little evil to stop being at all evil.
On a more serious note, I think for a lot of people Gaza was the drop that spilled the glass rather than THE reason they didn't support Harris.
good short answer.
It doesn't have to make sense for people to convince themselves to do it. It will certainly lead to worse outcomes for gaza
If your morals disregard the probable outcomes and is more focused on normative rules you could make some arguments but that kind of purity won't save a single starving child in gaza
Edit: spelling
Maybe people believe that it will save a starving child in the future. Like, some future where politicians finally listen to them?
So it's the moral argument of killing kids now in the hope of making a point that might or might not affect future politicians?
Because the standard for Democrats is perfectionism, but the standard for Republicans is "That's just Trump being Trump."
In other words, they didn't think it through, they got suckered by propaganda.
its funny, because literally the next post after yours was this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/07/trump-blank-check-netanyahu-war-iran-panetta
Chatgpt translation of a french politician's analysis on the matter :
Spoiler
In this election, the United States of America couldn’t choose the left because it simply wasn’t an option. Vice President Kamala Harris aligned herself with President Biden and thus approved everything he did—and everything he didn’t do, especially when it comes to the genocide in Gaza. Biden allowed it to continue in all its aspects, month after month, for over a year now. And today, he stands by as Lebanon is invaded and airstrikes occur in neighboring countries. Therefore, the Democrats are directly and personally responsible for this genocide, and it has sparked outrage around the world. How could such a powerful and wealthy country, a political model for so many, which funds and arms 70% of Netanyahu’s war, do nothing to stop this genocide? This heavily discouraged working-class voters and, more broadly, people with a strong humanitarian conscience sensitive to the suffering of others.
Trump won because Kamala Harris and this American "left" were unable to mobilize the popular electorate. One could even say they kept their distance from it to appeal to opposing voters. Yet, society showed its left-leaning pulse in referendums held alongside the presidential election. Even in states where Trump won, votes on reproductive rights resulted in victories for the “pro-choice” side. In states where referendums on wages or quality of life were held, left-leaning solutions often won. So we are witnessing a shift to the right in the United States, as in France, but it is driven by the political and media elite. The elites on both sides resemble one another, with their media outlets and pollsters, seeing society as more right-leaning than it actually is. This is devastating when the left fails to stand its ground: the right gains free rein, and the popular left demobilizes. There was no political expression available for those voting in favor of leftist measures in various states. The Harris presidential candidacy didn’t represent these views, so voters didn’t turn out. They gave up. Out of frustration, some may have even voted for Trump, but I believe this was minimal.
Harris tried to convince people that, since all the economic indicators were positive, their lives were therefore better. And here we touch on another dimension of this election’s outcome. In the U.S., as in France when President Macron boasted, we heard on all sides that things were improving: lower unemployment, rising income levels, and so on. But ordinary people, those who live by their labor, don’t see things that way. Most Americans know their wages haven’t improved. Most Americans see that they must work harder to maintain a lower quality of life, working more to earn more only to pay for things that cost increasingly more due to inflation, like food. But also the everyday essentials that go unmentioned! While we discuss taxes to denounce social security contributions, we never talk about “private taxes.” Profits and dividends are essentially private taxes on production, benefiting only a few, while public taxes benefit everyone. This is the reality. How many other costs are never counted in mandatory contributions? You’re required to insure your car, your home; you’re required to buy a certain number of things without which you could be penalized for not having. All these costs have risen!
[...] So, if you work more, maybe you earn more, but you live less comfortably and life becomes increasingly difficult. And ultimately, you live in an ocean of poverty. Even if you have a quiet home, which is your right, when you walk through the streets, you see people sleeping on the ground. You find all kinds of signs of human distress, which hurt you because you can’t pass by without noticing. Above all, you feel personally threatened by it. That’s why what just happened in the United States is a preview of what will happen in all democracies. Today, leaders shift further to the right, scapegoating immigrants, young people, and, broadly speaking, life itself, criticizing it and its risks. All while saying that people are ungrateful because things are supposedly getting better. These leaders will be increasingly punished at the polls. But the situation for those in power remains the same. Trump is a billionaire surrounded by billionaires. He still plans to cut taxes. He still plans to raise tariffs on imports, hoping to make it more attractive to produce things domestically. His form of protectionism is not the same as the protectionism we advocate for. We support “solidarity-based” protectionism, which aims to protect local production where it's necessary. For instance, we need to protect local agriculture from imports. But in other areas, we must stop letting the market dictate everything as is happening now. We see factories closing one after another because they can’t compete globally against countries with cheaper social and environmental standards.
If Trump imposes the tariffs he has planned, prices in the U.S. will rise until domestic production fills the gaps. It’s simple: these goods will cost more. You can’t avoid them, and they aren’t made locally, so you’ll pay more. He hopes this will push Americans toward local products. Let’s hope there are any to turn to. Personally, I don’t believe the U.S. can rebuild a productive base strong enough to compete with “the world’s factory” in China and the rest of Asia. This goes for us in France, too.
Let’s draw some lessons from this. First, for democracy to thrive, there must be real debate on programs, not just on personalities. When all candidates say the same things, there’s no space for real discussion. This is why it all ends in insults and a pitiful spectacle, as we saw in the U.S. There must be genuine policy choices that engage society’s intelligence rather than relying on rejection, hatred, and the discrediting of others. Two worldviews are facing off, in the U.S. as elsewhere. And society understands this. Is it “everyone for themselves,” or is it “all together”? We need this discussion, but in the end, we need to make choices based on concrete, opposing options—not just endless repetition of the same ideas.
We must also draw a strategic lesson: society needs alternative choices. That’s why we’re fine with being called the “radical left.” It’s not how we, see ourselves, but at least people understand we are proposing something different. Otherwise, people turn away from voting or lean increasingly to the right, looking for scapegoats. The second lesson is that good or bad economic numbers alone don’t convince people to vote a certain way. When people are told the numbers look good, it’s really just a way of saying they have no choice but to vote to keep things the same. People know that under capitalism, their lives are unlikely to improve, but their environment could be entirely devastated. And for those with bad numbers, it’s a way to say nothing can change because of that, as we see in France. Good numbers, bad numbers—the conclusion is always the same. But if we keep things the same, we’re heading for disaster.
We can’t win against the “every man for himself” mindset unless we explain why “all together” is essential. An election should be a vision for the future. The world is entering a dangerous phase. At each step, we must reflect on what has just happened and learn from it. The next time challenges come, we must reflect and make informed choices.
Kamala Harris, like President Joe Biden, bears personal responsibility for the genocide against Palestinians. They armed those responsible and stood by when they had the means to stop this catastrophe. Harris and Biden are responsible for once again mocking the public, providing none of the answers that American workers expect from a Democratic Party that wants to be the U.S. left. Americans need to break free from this stifling two-party system that prevents progressive choices. I regret that Bernie Sanders and the left of the Democratic Party continued to carry water for Kamala Harris and that Party.
Everywhere, we need the courage of our convictions. We must stand firm. Even if we lose because we couldn’t convince others, at least we fought. The worst thing is to lose both our ideas and the elections. That’s why we must learn a lesson from this. And broadly, everyone who wants to break with today’s system must take this lesson seriously—politically, socially, ecologically. We must all believe it’s crucial to stand firm, without compromising to seem more acceptable to our opponents, as Kamala Harris did. This world is unbearable for the majority. A different future must be possible for life to be bearable. And we must take this personally. We must act, not just let events unfold without doing anything, shedding tears before and after—tears of fear, then tears for what we’ve lost.
And the following are statements from before Nov 5th, before the election results:
Spoiler
When both candidates say the same thing, it creates a stifling environment. It becomes impossible to discuss topics that neither candidate has brought up—such as the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population and the invasion against the Lebanese people. This is an issue that provokes a reaction and deep thought globally. But in the United States, whether it’s Trump or Harris, both support the genocide. The current Biden administration, being Democratic, provides weapons and financial backing to Netanyahu, supplying nearly 70% of Israel’s arms. Occasionally, they make hypocritical statements about ensuring humanitarian aid access, while funding the genocide and destruction.
Trump and Harris both support the genocide and give unconditional, if differently worded, support to Netanyahu’s government. They also agree on handling capitalism, with neither willing to tax windfall profits of corporations. They both avoid addressing public health issues, among other critical matters. Although Democrats at least recognize environmental issues, Harris has boasted about the strong oil industry performance under Biden’s administration. There’s little space to discuss anything outside a narrow range of topics, which is why U.S. election campaigns inevitably become personality battles and insult matches.
There’s a lot here that we recognize because we see it at home, too. I find it amusing when the media says U.S. campaigns are “too personality-driven,” or that “the arguments are rudimentary,” or that polling institutes are always wrong! Isn’t that also the case here? We have dominant narratives that are just as basic, comparable to Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. We also have racist discourses that rival Trump’s, and our polling institutes are often off the mark, misleading the public about voter intentions. There is a reflection of the American system in the French system: Kamala Harris and the Democrats resemble the Socialist Party and Le Monde, while Trump is like the National Rally, Eric Ciotti, and Le Figaro.
Right now, we’re being cornered to take a position on the U.S. election. Recently, I watched the morning news with two French left-wing representatives. Both were asked to choose between Trump and Harris. But let’s remember: we are not U.S. voters. If we take a position, it’s to clarify our general political priorities. What matters to us in this election? The campaign has been reduced to very little, offering no choice on major issues impacting North Americans’ daily lives or those of people living under U.S. dominance. These issues, tied to critiques of capitalism, are unaddressed. Inflation erodes the income of the poorest Americans as much as it does in Europe or France, yet this is never discussed. Nor is anything said about what will be done for industrial areas where factories have closed and everyone has been laid off. What will come next? No one knows, except that both Trump and Harris favor tariffs to revive their industry—a strategy unlikely to bring them to a competitive market position with China, which is why both are anti-China. A Democratic leader went so far as to admit, “There’s no market solution to compete with China.” In other words, both support war.
I’ve just outlined how both candidates agree on key issues that we strongly oppose. I read that Harris is “the lesser evil” compared to Trump. I reject that notion. The lesser evil is still evil. As Hannah Arendt said, “Those who choose the lesser evil forget that they chose evil.” I’d add that Harris, by being complicit in genocide and pro-capitalist policies, has alienated working-class voters in swing states.
There is, however, a crucial difference between them on an individual liberty: Trump opposes the right to abortion, while Harris supports it. This is a fundamental difference—not a minor detail—since it affects the personal freedom of half of humanity: all women. If I were in the U.S., this would weigh heavily in my voting decision. They are similar but not identical. One might wish for a Harris victory, though it would not bring substantial change. However, a Trump loss would stir greater turmoil in the U.S., as he would not accept defeat. For us, that might be positive. A divided U.S. might reduce its global interference, including support for regimes like Netanyahu’s and others, especially in the Asia-Pacific.
If I were a voter in a swing state, I would vote Democrat. But in a Democratic state where their majority is assured, adding more votes wouldn’t increase the Democratic electoral college count. In such a case, breaking the stranglehold might be worthwhile, and I would consider my options. If in a solidly Democratic state, I’d vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because their platform closely aligns with our goals here.
Let’s briefly review the American Greens’ proposals, which neither Harris nor Trump supports. They advocate for free public education throughout life. They propose abolishing student debt and medical debt, and strengthening a social security system that doesn’t exist there. They support heavy taxes on large fortunes and corporations—something we just voted for in our National Assembly. They call for a minimum wage indexed to inflation and productivity growth, which we push for at each parliamentary session, and a guaranteed income above the poverty line. They would make housing a human right, place the pharmaceutical industry under public ownership and democratic control, and replace the two-party exclusionary system with a multiparty democracy. This includes proportional representation in all legislative elections and the abolition of the death penalty. They also champion gender liberties and reducing migration pressures by ending crises that force people to migrate—a statement nearly word-for-word from our party.
[...] In any case, the United States is a far more fractured and disjointed country than it may appear from a distance. And if this country is fractured and disjointed, it’s not because of the crudeness of the campaign rhetoric. That crudeness is actually a result of the fact that, since the candidates say essentially the same things on major issues, they can only confront each other through personal attacks. They both say the same things because both defend the same global order, the same widespread presence of NATO, the same dominance over the world, and the same aggression toward anything that resists them. Why with such force and violence? Because they are defending a system that has torn apart American society. The American people are better than the political figures who represent them. Sooner or later, the collective spirit of grassroots America, as it manifests when mobilized for major causes, will reemerge.
But today, the American public is being deeply influenced by the far right, much like public opinion in Europe, especially in places where there is no way to express an alternative viewpoint outside the two-party system that dominates and blocks any broader perspective.
My own argument to these people has been that I'd prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won't get elected.
In this election's current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.
If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.
Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.
Vote swapping is a thing you know. No reason to punch everyone in the nuts and double-down fuck your cause of you can vote the least worst option and I'll vote your 3rd party in my solid red dumpster state.
The arguments are as stupid as you guessed.
These are naive emotional people who are dumb as fuck. I know so many in my life and it's like arguying with a brick wall.
Children still believe we live in a black and white world, democrats are in power now, genocide is happening, they will not vote for them. The concept that both will finance the genocide but another will be much worse is not something they can understand.
You have others that want to intentionally punish democrats for not doing anything. Great in the meantime, Trump will provide a full carte blanche to Nettanyahu in the middle east, he will continue what he's doing, annex everything without any limits. They were partying in Israel after Trump won.
A third group wants the system to break down because they think if you're a post collapse society, they will be able to build their utopia.
Yes as dumb idiots living in la la land.
They would rather accelerate genocide than admit they're wrong. It's disgusting
Then work to change it. Your voting system is broken and makes millions feel disenfranchised. People should be able to vote their conscience without worrying about stupid political games.
I've criticized then for their voting behavior as well - that if they want outcomes aligned to their values that dictates a particular voting strategy.
But you don't get to blame them for the outcome. That's on the broken system, and the failure of the losing party to appeal to them.
Think of voting this way:
Signing your name to a candidate/psrty and what they’ve done/signaled they will do.
A lot of people can’t stomach a candidate who has been courting the neocons and softening their previous mildly progressive stances from the last time dems had a primary and the progressives were showing up in numbers. Everyone got in line and the debates were about M4A, erasing federally held student debt, raising the minimum wage, etc. Sanders single handedly dragged the party to the center (technically more “left” than they were) in 2016/2020 and the dems responded by po’mouthing like they cared about those issues, but then circled the wagons and kicked those voters to the curb.
The party has shown over and over again that they don’t give a shit about working class people, those of us that want real change. They want to maintain the status quo. Which is progressively more hostile capitalism.
Signing your name to that constant move rightward is unthinkable for some. And understandably so.
And that’s before we even discuss the ongoing genocide in Gaza funded and armed by the US. While this administrations representatives in the UN and in any official capacity constantly run defense for the genocide.
Plenty of people could not fathom putting their name on that tragedy.
None of this means that republicans aren’t fuckin neofascist shits. But…how many times have the voters left of the dems been told to eat shit and vote blue because the other guy is worse? WHILE CONSTANTLY COURTING THE RIGHTWING VOTERS WHO MAY HAVE FINALLY GOTTEN SICK OF IT?! Kamala literally said she would be different from Biden by having a Republican in her cabinet. WHAT.
With everything going on, this party said, “yeah, fuck all that. Let’s see if we can grab anyone to the right of us.”
I got sidetracked, but this is the thing. It’s not binary, because geopolitics isn’t binary. The worlds issues aren’t binary. But a binary choice is all we’re given to make.
Just…what. And neither of those two choices was actually going to solve the problems. One was maintaining the problems while one was the problems plus more problems. That’s not an attractive choice.
We all get that trump is much worse. But everyone else needs to understand how sickening that shitty choice was for anyone with a conscience about what’s going on in Gaza, what’s going on with their neighbors. Signing on for more of the same was completely unthinkable for some. That has to be understandable if we are ever going to change things.
We’ve been on the road we’re being forced down now as long as I’ve been around. And the road just keeps going forward. The dems’ proposal is “maintain the course.” The republicans’ was “mash the gas.”
Some people couldn’t stomach going any further down this road. That’s not making a choice to mash the gas. Because the world is not binary.
But you and everyone else posing similar questions is saying “how could you vote for mashing the gas by not wanting to continue down this road?? :(“
I love your road / mash the gas analogy. Great work I’m gonna steal it!
Hah please do!
If you have a particular ideological hang up revolving around the difference between explicit and implicit consent to be governed...
You can view yourself as morally correct for not voting for anyone whom you do not fully support.
Thus you have not given explicit consent to either candidate, or the voting system itself.
Its basically 'Don't blame me, I didn't vote, therefore I am not responsible.'
Its the trolley problem, but you just walk away from both tracks and the lever, and then claim that you did not consciously act to cause any harm, therefore you are guiltless.
...
Unfortunately by this logic it does also mean that you give implicit consent to literally everything your government does if you do not speak out against everything it does that you don't like, or take some explicit action to countermand.
...
It's an extremely sophomoric, cowardly and irresponsible stance to take in a situation like this, but there is an underlying logic to it... its just that this logic is ridiculous and absurd.
I think of it exactly in terms of the trolley problem. The whole premise is that if you do nothing (don't vote) more people die. By flipping the lever, fewer people die but you've taken an action that leads directly to their deaths. The philosophical question isn't just "is it better for fewer people to die" but "in pulling the lever, are you directly responsible for those deaths?"
My answer would be that inaction is itself an action. In this scenario, you have found yourself responsible either way. Suppose you pull the lever, though, to save as many lives as you can... Wouldn't the ones who die as a result of this have loved ones that absolutely do blame you?
A wise man once said, If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice
Its the trolley problem, but you just walk away from both tracks and the lever, and then claim that you did not consciously act to cause any harm, therefore you are guiltless.
That's the fucking point of the trolley problem. How can so many people get here and not fucking understand it's supposed to present the dichotomy between utilitarianism and deontology. If you have a duty to not commit murder, and pulling a lever murders people, you can't pull the lever. It's a valid position.
If deontology is wrong, we should immediately round up every depressed person, kill them, and harvest their organs.
If you are talking about deontology and utilitarianism from two to three hundred years ago...
Maybe your characterizations are accurate.
But uh, in more modern ethical theory...
Both camps have realized that pure adherence to the older forms of these ideas leads to absurdities and moral prescriptions which do not broadly match actual empirical responses to hypothetical scenarios.
As a result, most modern ethical theories are some kind of a hybrid of deontologic and utilitarian principles.
Anyway, let me try to illustrate this with a 'hypothetical' ethical question:
You have 300 dollars. This is your food budget for for 30 days. Say you only eat one meal a day, and if you do not eat at least one meal every 3 days, you will starve to death.
An ethical meal, produced by well compensated and treated laborers, costs $40 dollars.
A non ethical meal, produced by unpaid slave laborers in a far away land, who often die of exhaustion and exposure, costs $10 dollars.
Both meals have equal nutritional value and tastiness.
Does the deontologist decide that any level of harm to people they don't know is permissible and eat 30 $10 dollar meals?
Or do they decide no level of harm is permissible to others and buy only 7 $40 dollar meals and then starve?
Or do they purchase some combination of $10 and $40 dollar meals so as to minimize permissible harm to themselves and others according to some kind of calculation?
Is the deontologist in this third scenario not employing some kind of utilitarian calculation?
Naïve/entitled people fail to grasp the concept of compromise.
Exactly whatbwas the compromise? The entire genocide/atrocity has occured om herself and Biden's watch. She then failed to disance herself from the policy and did not take a position that aligned with people concerned about supporting a genocide.
Is Trump worse on this topic? Almost certainly.
Entitled people are the ones that felt they could speak over the valid concerns of the public because "I am the lesser of two evils so you have to vote for me." Turned out well, the US continues its fownward trajectory and to be an embarrassment all because of...supporting a genocide. It wasnt even a difficult one, a remedial foreign policy issue fucked Kamala and she can have her shame for it.
The entitled people are those who insist the conscientious objectors should have put their concerns aside.
The best argument I came across went something like this: if we show the Democratic Party that we’ll accept something as horrible as genocide as long as the Republicans are worse, then we’ve completely surrendered our agency as voters.
Powerful statement. It was the most coherent, rational, well thought out explanation I’d seen. It didn’t come off as a condescending lecture on morality, either. I actually considered their argument for a couple days, but ultimately, I decided it wasn’t strong enough to risk another Trump administration.
It is a stupid fucking statement. "If you aren't perfect on every single issue, then we won't vote for you."
- Step 1: take a conflict your nation did not start
- Step 2: tear your party apart over a conflict your nation did not start
- Step 3: lose the electoral fight in your nation to trump
- Step 4: ensure the war in that other nation is decided in the way your side did not want it to go
- Step 5: call Joe Biden a genocidal maniac
Maybe I don't want the people who think this is a valid course of action on my side, since they will sabotage my side. If there is a next election, I want these folks ejected from the party and gone. They can vote for trump if they want, because that's essentially what they did.
Israel is an arm of the US, Gaza is a proxy war. American presidents bear direct responsibility for the genocide
If Democrats knew they'd lose for supporting genocide,.they wouldn't have done it. It's precisely because blue-no-matter-who voters convinced them that they were invincible that they ended up losing. They thought they could bully the base into voting for them because enough of the base was willing to be bullied and proud of it.
On the other side, Trump is more likely to lose the war on Palestine.
They did know it had a serious impact on likely Dem voters, and likely Independent voters, in swing states, and they did it anyway.
... Unless you're going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-israel
From July 25 through August 9, pollsters asked voters if and how the Democratic nominee pledging "to withhold more weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians" would impact their vote. In Arizona, 35% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 5% who said they would be less likely. The figures were similar in Georgia (39% versus 5%) and Pennsylvania (34% versus 7%).
Even bigger shares of voters said they would be more likely to support her in November if President Joe Biden—who dropped out of the race and passed the torch to Harris last month—secured a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. In Arizona, 41% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 2% who said they would be less likely. In both Georgia and Pennsylvania, it was 44% versus 2%.
...
Biden dropping out and being replaced with Kamala was an opportunity for Kamala to change the Dem stance on this.
Kamala would have stood a much better chance at winning if she massively broke with Biden and did an about face on Gaza, and there is basically no way her campaign did not know this.
… Unless you’re going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.
They were in a bubble of other blue-no-matter-who media and were assured by the consultants from Clinton's campaign and the Labour Party that they could ignore those polls.
So really, it would have taken a big enough push from the public that MSNBC became anti-genocide. Hypothetically it could have happened, but the Democratic base is too disorganized to pull that kind of bottom-up messaging coup off.
So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?
She sides with Palestine, so she supports Hamas? She doesn’t support Israel? She supports Iran too!?
That’s just the tip of the media iceberg that would have been thrown at her.
Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?
Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.
How does she politically recover from that? ALL of that?
And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.
Can you (or anyone) provide a politically viable path through the above ‘top level’ landmines which would have gotten her into the White House and into a position where she could take direct action to stop the genocide?
To start, we have to understand that the genocide of Palestine started before the October 7th attacks. Israel's rampant illegal settlements in the Gaza strip may have been the final straw that provoked Hamas to make a move, but Palestinians have been abused, forced into ghettos, and murdered by private citizens for decades. All of this, and nobody in the West ever really batted an eye at the suffering except for a handful of informed leftists.
If Harris had won, the most likely outcome is that the immediate conflict would eventually be paused, just like it paused after the second intifadas. No land would be returned, no settlements removed, but Hamas' forces would be decimated to the point they could not fight back and Israel would return to their quiet slow genocide until the stars align to renew their attack once more.
Now that Trump has won, the most likely outcome is...that the immediate conflict will eventually pause, just like it paused after the second intifadas. Israel isn't an island, if they ramp up their aggression ever further, eventually other parts of the world will push for sanctions on Israel. A Trump win doesn't suddenly give Israel carte blanch to build the gas chambers, they still have to pay lip service to international law. Israel will inflict a grievous wound on Hamas, deep enough that it will take another generation before conflict resumes, and go back to expanding their settlements.
This genocide has been happening since before I was born, and multiple Democrat presidents have had an opportunity to say something or work towards curbing Israeli aggression. They've all vaguely promised to work towards a two-state solution, knowing that the current two states are what they want. If Kamala Harris couldn't even call it a genocide, then she was no different, and it would be foolish to think she would actually take any steps towards meaningfully stopping Israel.
Well, iirc, trump mentioned something about wiping the Palestinians out himself (or something along those lines, I halfway forgot as trump says a lot of shit) so let's just say that whatever the result it, it won't be good for the Palestinians.
Also remember that trump is now surrounded by a religious extremists cult who is betting on Jesus coming back in Jerusalem, and they've been working for 4 years to prepare for Trump's return and ehat they can do with a king with nukes
Talking about nukes, so this extremists cult is also betting on the world ending to make Jesus return sooo, yeah, nothing to see here.
Let's see, what other ways will this destroy the world? Oh yeah, Ukraine will be fucked too, trump will just force it to surrender either now, or negotiate "peace" after which Russia either just goes on or zelenski falls out of a window. with that done, the Baltics will be next for putin, don't doubt it. Poland and Czech Republic may follow. What else? Taiwan will be fucked now too so wars all over, yeeeiii.
What other fin can we expect? Climate change is a hoax too, right? Multiple point of no return came and went and shits about to get a lot worse a lot faster
Fuck America, and fuck the majority of Americans, you have ended the world. That basically includes anyone who didn't vote for Harris.
Israel will inflict a grievous wound on Hamas, deep enough that it will take another generation before conflict resumes, and go back to expanding their settlements.
Expanding settlements is continuing the violent conflict, just not as open warfare.
So, you’re counting on Trump, known for racist, anti-Muslim rhetoric, will do no different than Harris? Ridiculous. Trump doesn’t care, and it’s clear Bibi doesn’t care.
Also, that doesn’t tell me how that protest vote does anything. If the result is the same, then at least go for the person that won’t destroy even more lives.
I'm not counting on Trump for anything. I'm expecting other member states of the UN and especially the EU to act as the actual hard line for Israel, as they have for the past five decades. It's already starting to happen, and once sanctions are in place Bibi will finally start to become unpopular and can finally be replaced.
It'd be very nice if those sanctions started with the U.S., but it was never going to happen under either party. The number of lives lost will be the same. The U.S. has never been what has stopped Israel, it has always been global perception.
It's simple, for a voter that doesn't have other important things or believes the candidates to be equal in other things, like the economy, it becomes a moral choice to not vote for genocide.
If they believe there will be human rights violations elsewhere, like in the US, but one candidate and not the other, then the moral choice becomes to limit harm.
Much of this argument stems from different base assumptions, as follows-
-
Neither Trump nor Harris will commit other human rights violations, and they are materially the same to my family; staying home is the moral action.
-
Trump will commit human rights violations, voting for Harris is the moral action.
-
They will both commit more human rights violations; staying home is the moral action.
The people who were saying to stay home and not vote fell into camps 1 or 3. If you're unsure of why someone would believe in number 3 you should know we have illegal debtor's prisons that are ignored by the federal government, LGBTQ abuse that has gone unchecked by the federal government, illegal denial of asylum directly by the federal government, ... the list goes on. But rest assured there are reasons people would see them both as committing human rights violations in the US. This is not some Russian info op like the DNC fanboys would have you believe.
-
when you are laser focused on a single thing, anything else just slides past you. making life changing decisions with limited information is a uniquely american trait
Supporting genocide seems like a pretty good redline to focus on though. When both candidates promise to maintain or increase the genocide, why does this sham of a democracy deserve to be supported? This electoral system and US imperialism doesn't have to be endless, partaking in the process only serves to legitimize the horrors commited daily.
To quote a user from another thread:
Theyre not the ones that need to learn. Voters need to learn DNC is a bunch of wealthy moderates grifting voters.
I think people need to stop asking why didn’t people vote for Harris and as why DID people vote for Trump.
I think everyone on the whole, is completely underestimating the completely apathetic to politics voter. There is a TREMENDOUS section of the population that would sway from Trump if they felt energized to do so. Kamala was not it. Her policies were not it. Her stance alone on Gaza was not enough (but should not be dismissed).
People voted for trump because they: are a huge supporter, or they felt they had a fatter wallet during his administration. They feel burned by Biden and Kamala is more of the same. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Biden shouldn’t have even run, no one wanted it. He even said he’d be a transitional president. Then he backed out and Democrats held no primary. Why would any apathetic voter (especially the ones who were unaware Biden dropped out, check google trends) vote for the guy who made their bank accounts smaller if that’s all they care about?
I voted for Harris but not without reservations. The democrats do nothing to resonate with the left, and continue to distance themselves from leftist policies, which were popular on ballot measures this election.
I asked my coworkers who are mostly black and Puerto Rican (some of them even converted to Islam; none of them seem like atheists). They all agree that Trump will abolish taxes on overtime and forced child support (they swore that they would still pay for what their children actually need; I guess I gave them a "look"). Honestly, I couldn't find a real source of Trump even promising these things. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made up on social media.
It seems that many non-white urban folks voted for Trump. It seems most people just want a promise of food and shelter if they put in the work (people are working so many hours now). There's probably a logical reason why neither party has a platform anymore.
Asking people why they voted for trump, genuinely, required people to actually talk to people different than them and not get triggered and lose their shit in the process. That’s a tall order these days.
I’m a lifelong political independent (far left and politically homeless in the US) so it’s a lot easier for me to have conversations with trump voters than it is for blue maga to do so.
The summary of the frighteningly many trump voters I know in VT is that they hated both candidates but found trump marginally better on the economy (they’re worse off now than they were four years ago) and foreign policy (biden was straight up weak, trump can argue that he’s “anti war” although anyone with half a brain shouldn’t believe him he’ll bomb Iran the first chance he gets). They don’t like the Christian fascism, they don’t like the racism, they don’t like the homo/transphobia (or are ambivalent on the trans part, I’m gay and I can confidently say these people aren’t homophobic) - but ultimately these social issues take the backseat to the fact that inflation is fucking them and we’re on the verge of WW3 and both of these things objectively got worse under biden.
What's the counter-argument in favor of genocide?
More importantly the vast majority of votes don't matter because the system was created by slavers in order to guarantee their oppression never ends.
I think this point slides right past many people. The Electoral College and the 3/5ths compromise were the original American vote buying scheme. Southerners could literally buy slaves to increase their population and thus number of EC votes for president. They don't do that anymore but does anyone remember the massive advertisement campaigns of Texas and Florida being cheaper places to live, work, and employ people in the 2010's? They knew the next census was coming. They got a net gain of 4 more EC votes into their states by giving massive tax incentives to corporations and advertising cheap real estate. (It was 6 overall but 2 came from other red areas)
The EC was made for gaming the system, it's still used to game the system, and it should be abolished. Without that marketing campaign PA wouldn't have been the make or break state last night. A popular vote system is commonly derided as ignoring rural voters, but as we saw last night that's not true. And any party that ignores such a large demographic would be setting itself up to be on the receiving end of another "southern strategy".
The republicans have such a stronger political strategy than the democrats to the point that it’s embarrassing.
What's the counter-argument in favor of genocide?
Thw arguement is the party that has been calling for a cease fire since the start if the conflict versus the one that will actively encourage Netanyahu.
They've been calling for it in the most disingneous way possible and Harris failed to separate herself from that. Biden has openly repeated every debunked lie Netanyahu or the IDF offers, even to the point of Netanyahu setting Biden up and walking away when we depended on that statement. We made fun of Trump for the exact same thing with Putin. And you can't be a meaningful mediator if you're transparently controlled by one side.
One lues about it and one boasts. Both are the same.
Only if you don't recognize that Trump would be much, much, much worse. And what we see from the election, many can't seem to see that (in any way).
- Due to the failings of the electoral college system, my state was almost guarenteed to vote the same way as it has for the last 30 years
- I did not strongly agree with either party/candidate
- I dispise the current two party system that both major parties are incentivized to maintain
- Voting for a third party who is incentivised to push for change via ranked voting and other methods does aid them even if they don't win
If my state was likely to be contested, I may have voted differently. Voting for a third party in my case however had a greater impact than fighting or joining the tide of my state
Voting third party is fine. Protest voting is acceptable, though this result still fucking sucks. Strategic voting doesn't have to be the default choice.
Anybody that did NOT vote, thinking it would be any sort of protest, is completely idiotic. Self imposed disenfranchisement only forfeits your own ability to say anything about the results.
because americans see voting the same as buying and endorsing a thing which is objectively wrong.
Not buying a product hurts the manufacturer.
Not voting does jack shit. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
America has powerful Karen/Kyle energy where people overreact to a slight flaw in service and this argument is the Karen/Kyle Tantrum argument over genuinely bad policies supported by Harris. They think if they take a fit this election they will be in a better spot next election. The reality is that more poeple will be homeless and out of reach. The media will be in worse shape.
Voting is always a trolley problem.
But overall I don't think that's the biggest group of people. The majority of people that didn't vote I think were tuned out of the election because of ongoing failures.
Morals and ethics are subjective and based on emotions. That's why science doesn't say what's good or bad. I don't think you can prove or disprove this argument. People who are strongly focused on Gaza simply reject views that challenge their own.
Personally, I don't see morals as entirely subjective.
I'd say that 'worst possible misery for everyone' is objectively bad and any attempt to move away from that is better.
its arguable but not without merit. its very much the same as you don’t negotiate with terrorists. honestly its disgusting that we are questioning morals of not endorsing genocide instead of demanding aipac and dnc to be investigated for war crimes and defrauding its members for the 3rd election in a row.
Morality is not subjective. It is not (or at least should not) be based on emotions.
Morality is most definitely subjective. Talk to different groups around the globe and you'll find different moral boundaries. The morals posed by Islam differ from christianity, which differ from buddhism, which all differ from nihilistic views, and still further diverge from tribal morals of small secluded tribes of people. While they shouldn't be based on emotion, they do tend to be reactionary and emotional at their outset. And breaking them within any particular group tends to get you strong emotional responses.
Is it moral drugs to children? Think long and hard before you answer.
Because they are poorly educated americans maybe
The result of 40+ years of republicans destroying the education system, who'd ever have guessed
wtf ? what kind of education you got to think that genocide should be non-issue for voters ?
They're a trash person with no real empathy and failed to realize that arabs had control of 25 electoral votes.
I think there are no right or wrong. It became clear that both Democrats and Republic pushing the same exact support for Israel. When it comes to Palestine there are no lesser Evil.
Leading to this election, Israel burned hospitals and people in tent alive in Jabalia, barely any internet access, no water or food enters for almost 50 days now.
They carpet bomb gaza, attack UN bases, and finally declare UNRAWA can no longer work, another UN agency.
This is under Democrats. They already finishing the job.
Now what exactly Trump or republic will do is going to be the same. nothing will change because we are at the worst and there is nothing more they can do to make the situation even worse.
So if they are the same, and the government is not listening then what is the point of participation in election?
You are citing one subject here, Palestine. Yes, maybe under Harris nothing would have been different in regards to this. But it is pretty obvious, that under the orange shitstain's regime, many people all over the world will suffer a lot. The point in participating in this election was to prevent that. You didn't vote the special representativefor Palestine or some shit, but the president of the most influencial country in the world. Your actions have consequences. All Americans who voted for Trump or did not participate fucked not only themselves, but also so many millions of other people over, so I really thing, they should go fuck themselves.
The democrats' hands are not clean. They didn't fight for human rights even while red states and ICE were busy annihilating them. They had four years to do so, a trifecta in the start, and we watched as red state after red state made being trans illegal. They have been transparent about going after gay and inter racial marriage next. The democrats at the national level haven't offered anything in response. We also still have illegal debtor's prisons, child lunch debt, increasing rates of homelessness and abuse of homeless people.
The democrats can't just sit there doing nothing and expect people to vote for them.
