• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’m deeply uncomfortable with the amount of people calling those wholly opposed to complicity in genocide as “single issue voters”. Sure, if genocide isn’t enough of a concern for you to oppose candidates that are complicit, then I guess you can call it “single issue”.

    We’re talking genocide here, so I’m going to compare this to the most known genocide on the planet. Imagine if we knew about and could see the Holocaust occurring as it happened when it started, and FDR was funding the Reich including circumventing congress. Would you expect people to still vote for FDR, or would you expect people to oppose his candidacy? This caliber of rhetoric as well as this post has turned this leftist away from my plan to vote for Biden. Nice work folks. I’ll be voting for Cornel West and trying to keep the liberal trifecta in my state legislature this year.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      If Trump wins, funding for Israel will increase, and even more Palestinians will die. So basically, you’re valuing your purity over human lives. Which is quite fascist, if you think about it.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No, it’s fucking not. Cornel West opposes funding to Israel, supports a 2 state solution, and supports the same issues strawmanned by lady liberty. I value the end of a genocide as well as a socialist economy. If neither of the mainstream candidates will stop the genocide, I’m going to vote for the only candidate that wants to stop the genocide as well as handle the other issues I care about, in a way I’d align with. My barely tepid patience with Biden and supporters like you has run out.

        • LwL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I would agree with this if not for the fact that you live in an absolute farce of a democracy where voting for a third party is nothing but a protest vote. Which seems fine to do in a state that will vote majority democrat anyway, but plain irresponsible in one that won’t.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            2 months ago

            Discouraging people from voting 3rd party only ever hurts Democrats and liberal candidates. We’re not just electing the president, which is where most of the 3rd parties appear, we’re voting for everything. Telling people in battleground states that voting for “their guy” is pointless will stop the liberal and progressive people that support Cornel and Stein from going to vote. Those people vote Democrat down-ballot.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          I upvoted you for at least naming a potential candidate, rather than vaguely saying “someone else”.

        • Handrahen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          The reality is that either Trump or Biden will win and if you’re not voting for either of them then, practically speaking, you might as well not vote at all. Third party candidates only ever get a tiny fraction of the overall vote and that’s not going to change this time.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I’m not casting a protest vote. I’m voting honestly because there is no way to strategically vote for the less genocidal candidate.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Biden is the less genocide candidate. He’s been getting aid into Gaza, putting pressure on Israel, and directing funds towards humanitarian aid. All of that would cease immediately under trump.

              Realistically, the best way to reduce genocide is through protest, donations, and activism. Electorally, the best option is to vote for Biden in the hopes we can keep trump from making thing unimaginably worse.

              • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                clearly my message went over your head. Either a candidate supports a genocide, or they don’t. Biden can wag his finger all he wants, he’s still complicit in genocide. The truth is that he’s handling Israel more conservatively than Ronald Fucking Reagan.

                • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  If you put things in such stark black and white terms then every president has supported genocide; they’ve been funding Israel since the beginning, and America itself is built on stolen, colonized, and occupied land.

                  In truth elections have consequences, and across the board things will be substantially worse under trump than Biden.

                  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I think you forgot that I stated I’m a leftist. Specifically I’m an anarchist. I already think every president in history is a criminal. I’m talking about what’s happening in the here-and-now in the midst of the second Nakba.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      The “if Trump wins” folks are angry at the implication that their vote is tacit support of genocide, but are fine with the implication that not voting for Biden is tacit support for Trump

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      And I’m deeply uncomfortable thinking that giving a chance to the candidate that thinks Hitler is a great guy AND the USA should do some of the same things as Nazi Germany while he’ll ALSO keep funding Nazi Germany, but even harder, is sane - let alone even a viable argument for those already opposed to the current choice already funding genocide.

      Even the EU is learning how stupid Americans are and are making plans to not rely on it at all + make entry harder (next year you won’t be able to travel to just countries here for extended stay easily anymore by passport alone for example). And dumbasses like you are proving there’s a severe lack of critical thinking.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it depends on how people/voters see the particular conflict. When Bush jr put a genocide on the Taliban, he had a lot of support. When Obama put one on ISIS, he had a lot of support. When Biden stopped US support for genocides in Yemen or Rwanda, voters didn’t really seem to care one way or another.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        When did Biden interfere with the Rwandan genocide, famously known for global inaction as the Hutus killed nearly 1 million Tutsis? Fuck off with this transparently bad faith talking point.

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m so very sorry, of course I meant the Rwanda supported genocide in Eastern Congo. Can you explain on why you see this as ‘bad faith’?

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            it was a bad, wrong, evil thing that happened when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not a genocide. Same with how Obama handled drone strikes, well, everywhere in the region. I did not have the context that you unintentionally referenced the wrong events and it was the simplest point to address. I apologize for leveraging that accusation

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I think it’s weird you’re downplaying these other genocides to defend taking a stronger position on Gaza

              The Lancet estimates 2,5% of the Iraq population killed because of the US invasion between 2003-2006. They’re nearing 1,5% in the Gaza strip (but it’s slowing down). So I would think it’s weird to say it’s normal people are protesting the Gaza one so much while not really caring about the Iraq one, back in the day.

              (Sorry I hope I’m somewhat exagerating but I also hope you see my point)