1167
submitted 4 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago

Your reading comprehension is fucking atrocious, then. Even when Biden was the candidate, the vast majority has been saying "ok, continuing to support Isreal as they commit war atrocities is bad, but Trump would be much worse" for Gaza, and a ton of other things. Like democracy in America, for starters"

There are no lines to read between. It's the bold text that we accept that a vote for Dems is a vote for genocide. But given no other plausible alternative, and the enormous risk to a plethora of other issues that Trump represents, voting for less genocide is the best option on the table.

But you are well aware this. You're just arguing under false pretext to strawman your way to voter disenfranchisement.

See, we can actually read between lines here.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A vote isnt an endorsement. Viewing it as one is a permanent commitment non-voting because even if like Bernie Sanders was being elected people would just say his support of Joe Biden eliminates him from ever being a moral vote.

I would instead say its better to view a vote as strategic tool: its better to deny your enemies a win than let them have one for free. For the Gaza Genocide, I think we can all agree the villain here is Netanyahu and his preference is Trump. A vote for Kamala here may not solve anything, but it does deny Netanyahu additional support he might get.

[-] sandbox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Okay, cool. Go ahead and state the case, then, if it’s such an obvious fact. Go ahead and say “I will be voting for a genocidal candidate this election, because that is what my country’s political system forced me to do.”

I will be truly impressed if you actually do it.

Most people find some excuse not to. That’s the problem we have.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Jfc.

It’s the bold text that we accept that a vote for Dems is a vote for genocide. But given no other plausible alternative, and the enormous risk to a plethora of other issues that Trump represents, voting for less genocide is the best option on the table.

I literally bolded it for you this time.

Or if you want me to put in in terms of self:

I support a candidate that supports genocide because they support less genocide than the only other plausible option. Both in Gaza and in Ukraine. And less blatant corruption. And less erosion of rights. And less lynching of minorities. And less open encouragement of domestic terrorism.

There, you got your soundbite. Take the bolded portion and pass it around to your comrads out of context for all I care.

[-] sandbox@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Good for you, I am impressed! Now help us convince all the other democrat voters to do the same and we might actually be able to fix this.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Keep on attacking that imaginary strawman. Lemmy .world connected communities as a whole accept the very obvious reality of what the stakes are. In every political thread, this is spelled out over and over because of you "leftists" trying to disenfranchise Dem voters exclusively.

There are plenty of memes caricaturizing you clowns.

https://lemmy.world/post/21329323

[-] sandbox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago

“strawman”

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 days ago

They won't say it, because this is not the argument they want to have. They are much more comfortable talking about how their candidate is so smart and competent when the fact is their candidate is also a bloodthirsty monster. If they really accept that fact, they can't go back to pretending they're voting for "a very serious adult".

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1167 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3721 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS