I think something that contributes to people talking past each other here is a difference in belief in how necessary/desirable revolution/overthrow of the U.S government is. Like many of the people who I've talked to online, who advocate not voting and are also highly engaged, believe in revolution as the necessary alternative. Which does make sense. It's hard to believe that the system is fundamentally genocidal and not worth working within (by voting for the lesser evil) without also believing that the solution is to overthrow that system.

And in that case, we're discussing the wrong thing. Like the question isn't whether you should vote or not . it's whether the system is worth preserving (and of course what do you do to change it. How much violence in a revolution is necessary/acceptable). Like if you believe it is worth preserving, then clearly you should vote. And if you believe it isn't, there's stronger case for not voting and instead working on a revolution.

Does anyone here believe that revolution isn't necessary and also that voting for the lesser isn't necessary?

The opposite is more plausible to me: believing in the necessity of revolution while also voting

Personally I believe that revolution or its attempt is unlikely to effective and voting+activism is more effective, and also requires agreement from fewer people in order to progress on its goals. Tragically, this likely means that thousands more people will be murdered, but I don't know what can actually be effective at stopping that.

Because I live in one of the many many states were my vote doesn't matter at all.

What's the point of casting a worthless vote in favor of genocide?

People here act like we live in some kind of actual democracy lol.

I think it's because of stuff like this:

I'm not a U.S.A-ian. From my view(might be too critical), I don't think the foreign policy would be greatly affected by the President or party, unless there's some massive movement and notion of losing resources like during the invasion of Vietnam.

My logic (I don't live in the us but for the sake of argument, let's pretend I do) is that if a politician can commit a livestreamed genocide, and they win the election, it signals to politicians that there is no line they can cross that will make their campaign unviable.

It would be more ideal if the Democrats could have been punished for their war mongering years ago, but you never punish your representatives for crossing even the most egregious possible line, then you truly don't have any power over them and have fundamentally given up.

If tommorow, even 10% of the dems indicated in polls that they would not vote for kamala because of gaza, it would force the DNC to take a stronger stance on the issue because the race is too tight. If this had happened many months ago, the Democrats could have been forced in giving concessions. But the Democrat voter base has made sure that the demmocrat party has no need to give concessions. They have used themselves as meat waves to ensure that the genocide can continue smoothly.

Electoral College with First Past The Post electors. Hundreds of millions of american votes are dumpstered for the presidential election. So a significant portion of protest voters in deep red OR deep blue states aren't impacting the outcome. Only swing states decide the outcome and even then it is only a few districts within those states. And so the electoral outcome for the presidency gets reduced to the most salient wedge issues in those communities.

It just so happens some things are not so localized an issue. So the idea (or one of them) is to demonstrate whether there is a meaningful voting bloc to be had here that deserves to be listened to, or can continue to be ignored.

Obama dropped an average of 60 bombs every day on the middle east and north africa during his presidency.

The US isn't a democracy, and it's elections are nothing but theatre. I recommend asking about this on lemmygrad or hexbear also.