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 😊.

  • blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    You say “so many” but I have yet to see any evidence that these accounts aren’t all controlled by the same guy in Moscow.

  • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    48 minutes ago

    I voted for Harris, but I feel like it’s pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.

    One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I’m not saying “is” here. I’m saying “should be”.

    We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there’s value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.

    And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu’s whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.

    For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It’s not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!

    Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that’s not something we can do everywhere. We can’t repeatedly choose the “least miserable option” and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It’s just not possible.

    Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, “on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is.”

    Some people’s hill is their ballot.

  • GhostFaceSkrilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Who are these people and where are they? I don’t know of and haven’t heard of any pro Palestinian voters refusing to vote for her over the alternative.

  • MoonMelon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    It’s the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, “Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people”.

    But if you take a step back it’s reasonable to ask, “WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don’t spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus’ forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose.”

    So given that realization it’s also reasonable when told you must choose to say, “Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt.”

    That’s the essential argument. There’s the realpolitik decision to do “less harm”, but you can also reject the fucked up premise.

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Because it’s a far right party. Trump happens to be more far right, but that doesn’t change that fact. I’m not voting for far right, neoliberal, genocidal freaks.

    At how many genocides do you draw the line? If the democrats committed a second one along with the Palestinian genocide they are committing right now? You’d again say trump would be worse, vote for Harris. If they committed three? Four? No matter what they do, Trump would do worse, so again you’d tell us to vote for Harris.

    I draw the line at a genocide and at everything this neoliberal party stands for. I am not giving that party my approval because it is going in the exact opposite direction of what I stand for. At some point, the lesser evil is too evil.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    They already lived through 4 years of Trump and have decided it is worth doing it again instead of letting the party most currently responsible for said genocide to win.

    Point being that Harris has outright refused to meet any sort of demands on Israel. There was no reduction in arms nor any restrictions placed on Israel, and Harris fully intends to continue that policy.

    If she loses, it means that she failed to meet her constituents demands, which means they’d have to actually meet them in the next election to win.

    Also because I have a hard time seeing how anyone who lost entire family trees would listen to “uM AkShuLly TrUmP woUld bE 9999x WorSe, wE jUst NeEd tO ProTest aFTER tHe ELeCTion” as if we didn’t just full send billions of dollars in munitions and weapons to Israel.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Three points:

    • Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn’t stop reminding us of in everything but, “strangely”, not this subject) and isn’t even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump’s word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
    • If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn’t much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it’s very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
    • Some people simply put their moral principles above “yeah but” excuses and won’t vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.

    In summary:

    • Trump’s Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris’ is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
    • A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they’re supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the “wrong” ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that’s the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it’s the least bad choice.
    • Some people can’t just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn’t even a “choose a good thing” but actually a “choose a lesser evil”, and “Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies” is pretty strong as moral principles go.
  • juliebean@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    it’s like people forget that trump was already president before. the Israel/Palestine conflict is not new. i’m pretty sure every US president since Israel was founded has supported Israel in every form the conflict has taken. there’s more gas on the fire now, but it’s not like trump wasn’t stoking the flames when he was president last time, and it’s weird to think he wouldn’t actually contine the bipartisan US policy of providing material aid to Israel, regardless of what fucked up shit they do.

    both candidates will support genocide, so at that point you can either not vote, and just let the chips fall where they may, vote for a third party candidate who won’t support genocide (because they won’t get elected), or choose between the two genocidal options based on other factors, and try and minimize the damage in other arenas.

  • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election

    If you don’t live in one of the 7 states that matter in an election then you can vote your morality, safe in the knowledge that the EC will ignore your input, anyway

    Inb4 some dipshit mentions down ballots when we’re talking about the fucking presidential election

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The U.S. also has a huge defense industry that has made people ridiculously rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Those billionaires are heavily invested in the defense industry, so it’s not in their interests that wars end at all.

    This is that “military-industrial complex” that former President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. His concern was that the U.S. would become bogged down in an endless series of “forever wars” that do nothing but transfer wealth to the already-wealthy.

    Keeping that military industrial complex well-fed is the reason why so many politicians have such a boner for war. Not only to keep their wealthy sponsors happy, but to keep tax money and jobs flowing to their states, which just happen to manufacture war materiel.

  • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Single issue voters just seem to be the excuse of Democrat party for if they lose.

    Just like election fraud is of the Republican party.

  • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Both candidates will support Israel, so for pro palestine voters it’s a “Would you like to vote for the Shitty Party, or Less Shitty Party” situation, where not voting from these parties is shunned upon because it will help Shitty Party win.

    • verdigris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s not just shunned, it’s literally throwing your vote away. Voting laws in the US, including the electoral college, mean that it is literally impossible for a third party to win the presidential election. We need ranked choice or other alternative voting methods, and the EC needs to go away.

        • verdigris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          26 minutes ago

          It’s only worthless if it’s third party, sadly.

          I love getting downvotes for just understanding the law.

    • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That’s too simplistic. The two parties will either make it worse or not make it better. Not voting (assuming you are in a state without winner-takes-all or are in a swing/purple state) is letting other people decide for you. Walking away from the trolley problem doesn’t untie people from the tracks.

      • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Reddit logic isn’t going to convince me to support a genocide candidate, sorry. My vote was never yours. There’s no tent big enough that Dick Cheney being invited in won’t result in me wanting to burn the whole tent down.