1364
And I'll vote for him again
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
1364 points (91.7% liked)
Memes
45179 readers
1455 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Not voting is a conservative ploy. It's their best chance.
The process of evolving your leadership remains the same:
pick the least-worse option, based on who can realize goals they're pitching that actually help people.
repeat step 1 every election.
Since the conservatives in my country have no platform other than "My opponent is terrible!" they should be disqualified .. but aren't.
And you dont see how voting for the "lesser evil" allows both parties to move further and further right? I was actually taken aback by how blatant you were in your steps, most liberals dont state it so directly.
I'm gonna assume(hope) you think American foreign policy is bad real quick. Biden is complicit in a genocide, like an actual child killing, people starving, oppressor disguising bombs as canned food genocide. Sure trump is hypothetically worse, but by voting for biden you are showing the democratic party that you are willing to vote for someone who is actually genocidal. You are showing them that they can commit genocide when it benefits them and you'll still vote for them. Of course this isn't the only incredibly horrific thing the american establishment does that neither party budges on and the american populace just accepts. It's just the worst and most obvious at the moment.
Always remember that Germany voted for Hindenburg
Your logic is fucked.
Could you expand on that?
You've admitted that you are young and haven't been around for large scale issues and deep seated treaties and ally-ships that lead to the development of global political issues. It is incredibly understandable that given your age and experience you've summed up your decision into what you've currently seen in the news and perhaps the few bullet-point-history issues you've read up on.
The issues going on with Israel are enormously complex and are not as simple as who's land it is, who is keeping who away, and who is committing genocide. Yes, it is horrible, and it would be ideal if our political leader could step up and call out that country for those actions. The unfortunate reality from a geopolitical perspective and from the strategic perspective of being a world leader that needs to think many, many steps ahead is that the middle east is a very hostile area, and Israel is very strategically placed to not only have an ally, but also to keep key ports open - both for economic and military reasons.
Making a statement against the actions of Israel would have been detrimental to future global peace options. Instead, Biden can work with Netanyahu behind the scenes without making an official statement.
No, fuck you, there's no justification for aiding a genocide. It is absolutely as simple as who is committing a genocide, you should have zero tolerance for it. Would you give bullets to someone after watching them shoot a kid if it benefitted you? The US can survive without israel and the people of the middle east would be better off without both the US and Israel. American and its client state are a destabilizing force in the region and that is not an accident. Can you even name a time where US invention in that region helped the people who live there? I dont want biden to work out an agreement with natanyahu, i want netanyahu to face the fucking wall.
You are still being incredibly naive.
It has nothing to do with it benefiting me - or specifically the US as the case with Israel goes, or even the party or the politician. As I tried to describe in my original comment, it is a strategic move for GLOBAL PEACE - not just the US. This is not only about US intervention, which it is clear you have a lot of thoughts about, but also about the ports and access to resources both in and out for all of the countries in that region, and militaries of all countries. And destroying our only allyship in that region (not just us, but the other countries that have maintained their stance with Israel), maintains the ability to keep a foothold in that region.
If someone just shot a child in front of me, would I give them bullets? If they controlled the only access to all of the resources (oil, water, food, etc) that would cause my other allies to die without during times of crisis, I would absolutely consider it. That does not mean it would come without limitations.
For you to still think this way after it being explained to you shows how shortsighted and limited you are thinking.
From the rest of your comments, it's clear that you are very interested in politics and learning a lot, which is good! And you've gotten to a lot of topics, also good. But it seems like you have gotten to the surface level issues and become very passionate about them and it's that way or the highway instead of looking any deeper.
The US is not interested in global peace. It is not engaging in genocide for the peace. The idea that you can murder civilians for peace is ludicrous. I fully understand that the US and Israel control much of the resources in the region and regularly engage militarily. I am also aware that maintaining a foothold in that region is very important for the western ruling class. Im an not disagreeing with these facts. I am saying that these things are wrong and should not be done. I am saying the US, Israel, and numerous other western powers have done significantly more harm than good for the people within that region. I am also saying that no one should have that much control over those resources because it gives them the power to commit these sorts of atrocities.
Let me be clear, israel should not exist and before you lecture me on how nuanced and actually super complicated it is because theres been conflict in that region for 3000 years; i am well aware of the history. Everything before the establishment of the israeli state is nearly irrelevant to the current context. I fundamentally disagree with the existence of a settler colonial state.
The US and other western powers have no innate right to the resources of that land. Every single one of them can exist without israel. We should not have to pay for our resources in blood. Their influence in that area is not in the name of world peace and security but in the monetary interests of our ruling class. Western capitalists are a major cause of instability in that region.
Maybe if our current system of government requires the murder and systemic exploitation of hundreds of millions of people in order to provide for its citizens then it should not exist.
As for my anology, would you think differently if you had a gun too? The US has invaded and couped for with significantly less justification. It is not unreasonable to say that israel could be dismantled by force, it will likely have to be.
I think you're much too resigned to your current reality. Its easy to look the other way and pretend the horrors are justified because of some sort of complexity. Telling yourself there is good reason or that theres nothing that can be done is very surely very comforting.
Nowhere in my response did I say that anyone had a right to the land, and nowhere in my response did I say that it was Western powers that I was concerned about getting resources.
This is what happens when someone looks at the surface of issues and then becomes incredibly passionate about it.
You need to listen to people that have lived through many, many years of middle east conflicts. Talk with people who have been entrenched over there. Become friends with middle easterners who have moved over here during the 80s and 90s (as adults, not the children of those that came over) and started businesses and ask about their experiences.
You don't want to hear about how things are nuanced, but you look at things in such a black and white manner, which is typical of those in your age group becoming interested in politics.