this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
23 points (70.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7216 readers
215 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alternatively, they could vote for Trump who has already stated his desire to increase all bans on Muslim immigrants. How long before his racist leadership tries to outright deport all Muslim citizens for not being "white enough"?
I mean at this point Shapiro isn't even a presumptive nominee, he's just one of the possible candidates. I think the only reason he's even being considered is because he might bring in some extra votes in a large swing State.
It's odd to me that so many Arab voters are leaning towards Stein. As much as we hate it, this is still a two-party nation, and in an election where the votes might be close why would you take any chances in basically throwing away your vote? Personally I would still cast my ballot for the candidate who hasn't directly threatened my family. Then again polls are not ballots, and as we get closer to November a lot of people's opinions could still change.
It's worth considering that maybe Arab and Muslim voters aren't stupid and they have a point. If we assume that both parties really want to win (and with Dems that is definitely an if), then the worst thing you can do to persuade them to listen to you is to vow to vote for them unconditionally. If the constituency keeps approving a genocide and the genocide remains profitable, why ever would the Dems offer an anti-genocide candidate? Conversely, if hardline opposition to the genocide loses the Dems an election, suddenly next time around their pro-genocide ghouls aren't "electable" and they need to actually pick someone who will give the people some of what they want, almost like there's a popular mandate or something!
All of this is giving a thousand times more credence to liberal democracy in general and America's in particular than I actually have, but there are many ways of thinking beyond "Well, what are you going to do about the two party monopoly?", most of which involve thinking past a single election cycle.
The fact that he is even likely is insulting.
If Democrats want Arab and Muslim votes maybe they shouldn't even consider someone who volunteers to kill Palestinians and calls them savages as VP?
If all other people joined the Arabs there would be no more two party system.
True enough, but how you are going to convince enough people to change a lifetime of voting habits? I mean I voted 3rd-party in 2016 because it literally doesn't matter in my district -- we vote more than 80% Democrat so a few people changing their vote wasn't going to matter. However after losing in 2016 to that shitstain I'm simply not willing to take that chance again. I know my one vote still wouldn't make a difference, but for me the principle this time is voting directly against Trump by voting Dem. And hoping that Conservatives finally realize Trump isn't a "radical change", he is just outright insane and doesn't give a rats ass about anyone who is worth less than tens of millions of dollars, and that the next election provides candidates who aren't treating people's lives like a stupid reality show.
If only people would take the Arabs as example and start endorsing a third party instead of pushing back on it. Somewhere a line must be drawn. If not here where?
Sure, lines must be drawn. The problem is that one of the candidates is openly friendly with white-supremists and likes to encourage them to take action without getting his own hands dirty. If this election opens the doors for openly killing anyone of color (you know, even more so than it is now), then we're really taking a big step backwards and have no hope at all of pressuring our government to start making things right in other countries too. From my perspective, both parties are going to continue this genocide in Pakistan for as long as they can, and if we open the doors to domestic terrorism then none of us have any hope of trying to encourage foreign policy changes.
So if genocide is not the red line, at what point would you stop voting Democrat?
What's your solution for the problem? Voting for someone who doesn't have any chance of getting elected? Or would you rather vote for Trump, who is encouraging complete annihilation of the Gaza strip by Israel to end the conflict overnight, while also vowing to end all support for Ukraine and back Russia in a second genocide? Personally I'm going to cast my vote for a candidate who can prevent Trump from getting back in office again, where there might be a slight chance of pressuring some change in Israeli policy. Unless you can somehow convince 300million Americans to vote 3rd party in the next three months, no other choice has any possibility of helping anyone, and fewer votes against Trump risks a much larger number of people being killed directly by US policy.
Where do YOU draw the line when there's no way to win no matter how you vote? I draw the line at trying to reduce the number of casualties first through my vote, and then seeing if there's any way to move forward to make things better.
People need to draw a line somewhere at which point the scale tips over because people refuse to vote for any of the two parties.
My previous question is the answer to your current question. If Kamala Harris promises to nuke Gaza would that prevent you from voting for her?
That's not really a valid question since it would never happen. Like Trump specifically, the US will always try to keep its hands clean of such actions. Yeah we'll send them nukes all day long, but we're not "responsible" because we didn't actually launch them. However Harris sanctioning a strike on Gaza is nothing different than Trump has already stated, so a vote for either candidate wouldn't change that outcome. On the other hand, Trump absolutely has done far more damage domestically, and promised to do even worse if he gets elected again, so I'm still in the party of "anyone but Trump".
I never thought Biden would hardline this much on a straight genocide yet here we are.
But answer the question honestly. If Harris said she would Nuke Gaza as well would you vote for someone else?
It's not a simple question, I would have to know the circumstances that lead to such a drastic situation, who was running against her, and what realistic chance any 3rd-party candidate had of getting the votes from others. The reality is that it's not something that is ever going to occur because even Trump isn't senile enough to forget that such an action would incur the wrath of other NATO members. You can play what-if games all day long, but unless you create an entire imaginary world to go with your implausible scenario, you're not going to get any legitimate answers.
If Trump said he wants to nuke all of the middle east and Harris said she just wants to nuke Gaza would that make you vote Green/Cornel West?
He is absolutely going to be the nominee.
I really hope not, there are certainly better candidates on her short-list... but unfortunately we don't really have a say in that part. Guess we'll find out in a couple of weeks, at least she's announced her candidates early enough that the shit can hit the fan on the internet and give her a heads-up about certain choices being wildly unpopular.
Oh I hope not too. But Netanyahu talks and the Democratic party listens.
Unfortunately both parties listen to him. It's all rather disgusting.
Why would they vote for Harris, who has already stated her desire to support Israel's genocide and ethnostate? How long before her racist leadership tries to outright deport all Muslim citizens for being "too anti-semitic"?
Now you're just trying to impress Republican policies onto Democrats. Democrats accept immigrants and welcome the diversity into our country, Republicans just want to deport everyone who isn't a "true white American".
If you pay absolutely no attention to policies or what is actually going on, I could see how you would reach that conclusion. Reality, unfortunately, disagrees with you.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/30/nx-s1-5055670/harris-trump-border-immigration-georgia
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/MIGRATION-DEPORTATIONS/](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/MIGRATION-DEPORTATIONS/akpeoeoerpr/
https://apnews.com/article/biden-asylum-ban-halt-border-mexico-1905e3565b2da1cffb8f38a778c07118
Your first link actually seems to highlight the problem perfectly... Republicans complain all day long about Immigrants being the cause of all their problems, but then they turn around and tank their own bill because it would look bad if immigration problems dropped during Biden's term. Amazing how you've got more illegal crossings when there's nobody there actually watching for people. What would happen if Republicans stopped blocking everything Democrats support for the sole reason being that the Dems supported it? What would happen if they started trying to work for the Americans they claim to represent? I'm not saying Dems don't do a little bit of that too, but at least they try to work across the isles to get things done. Lately the only contribution Republicans have made is to block everything that might help Americans, and might help the immigration issue, and they haven't actually passed a damned thing that is helpful to anyone.
Uh, nice attempted topic change there. Guess you are just going to ignore that the Democrats are even more anti-immigrant than Trump is because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I can't believe you're bragging about the Republicans not pushing an anti-immigrant bill. Truly sick stuff for someone who was pretending to care about racism from Republicans.
Biden and Harris have both promised and delivered on being more racist than Trump, who is already incredibly racist. You don't dislike racism. You dislike it when Red Team does it.
They could also just stay home
Democrats are genociding Muslims rights now
Probably just as long as the Democratic candidates. They have the track record.