this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
286 points (81.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43680 readers
2366 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

The USA has several legally binding treaties etc promising military cooperation with Israel. Harris isn't allowed to break them legally. Any change to this would have to be passed by the house and senate. So it genuinely doesn't matter what Harris or anyone else wants.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 hours ago

Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?

https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Under federal laws, the US Department of State has a policy prohibiting weapons transfers when it’s likely they will be used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.

In February 2024, Veterans for Peace sent an open letter to the State Department and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, invoking these laws and policies, urging the termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This is already missing the point that if Harris is not elected, Palestine will be gone. Hell, everyone everywhere in the world will suffer under Trump

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ding! Ding! Here is the correct answer.

I'm beginning to think that liberals and lefties have no clue how government works and they want a strongman/dictator as much as the magahat idiots. They just want one that aligns with their beliefs instead.

The POTUS is NOT all powerful and can make what ever decisions they want. Controlling the house and senate is far more important than whoever is living in the White House. The House and Senate writes the laws and checks to pay for everything. AND they ratify the treaties making them formally binding.

If you want to stop the genocide, elect the people in the house and senate that will effect the actions needed to make it happen.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Waiting several election cycles to end a genocide is insane and there is no world in which that is the moral, ethical, or logical path forward. Hope this helps!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 hours ago

But it IS the process to get it done. I never said it was ideal. If you don't like the process, then vote for those that WILL change the process. But that takes time. Until then, we ARE stuck with the laws we currently have in place. That is the reality of the situation. I hope this helps you understand representative democracy vs a dictatorship.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You know you can communicate with your current senator and representative right? Representative is literally their name, they represent you, if enough people apply pressure to the point they think their job is at risk, they will often magically have a "change of heart".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

they represent you

Are you 8 years old?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I've actually worked in politics, the amount of people that find it easier to give up because the system is deeply flawed instead of actually doing the hard work of change is astounding. If you want things to change, you have to make your voice heard on something more than lemmy. Representatives nearly all want to keep their jobs. If you show them your motivated enough to contact them, it shows them it's important enough to you to sway your future vote. I've talked to many representatives in my life, at least on the left they generally see their job as representing constituent interests. If enough pressure is applied, they will often change their vote/introduce legislation, etc.

But they are not on lemmy getting the political temperature from keyboard warriors with more snark than braincells.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The thing that keeps their job more than voters is donors. Hope this helps!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

They aren't mutually exclusive and both involve the same thing. The only reason money matters is because it is used to sway voters, people showing they are not swayed by the propaganda invalidates the money.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

Are you familiar with the term lobbying and how it shares a bedroom wall with bribery? Individual votes usually matter little to none in the grand scheme of things, and there's next to no evidence that politicians above the local level give a shit about individuals throughout a huge swathe of the US. Governatorial election promises in the southeastern US are almost universally lies about quality of life improvements, from healthcare changes in florida benefitting no one to roadwork that never happens being promised every election cycle in alabama and mississippi. There is a HUGE disconnect between representatives and their constituents in these states, and they're not the only ones.

Realistically, that money is not being used effectively to sway anyone, especially when little is actually used for propaganda, and weak vectors are chosen. Many campaigns are still running on outmoded methods of contact, like outdated lists of people for cold mailing, text messages that wind up in your spam filter, and shock value ads that only serve to annoy and change VERY few minds about anything.

You have a very optimistic outlook on how any politician views a letter or email from a constituent. Within my whole lifetime, I cannot name ONE politician in the US that has changed course over constituent contact. Not for any single thing. That's why someone asked if you were eight years old earlier; most people from 25-40 years of age have, at this point, accepted that the current system does not operate in the way that we were taught in school. Instead, we have this broken system where the cries of the masses enter the void, and MAYBE ONE "representative" echoes them to a person or place where change can begin. The ones that do are decried so unbelievably fast it makes your head spin, and the ones that retain office while doing so are treated like crazy extremists by any media that could inform people of their goals, so there's no hope of popular/uninformed support.