148
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
148 points (79.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
237 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
I'm not voting for genocide. In fact I already voted against genocide.
The Dems nor Republicans have a candidate that is against genocide.
So you voted for someone you know won't get elected. So you're ok with the worse of the two between Dem and Rep? Because you had a chance to help prevent the worse of the two coming into office and didn't. Choosing to cast a vote that won't impact the outcome helps literally no one. The Gaza situation is not all that is happening in the world.
I'm not ever going to vote for a genocide, and there is no moral high ground if you do .
But you realize that a Dem or Rep is who will be president. And they won't handle the situation exactly the same. So you're allowing the person who will handle it worse a better chance to be in power. That is literally what you've done. So if the worst happens, the option you could have helped prevent, just know you had a chance to make it less bad and decided your conscious was worth more than people's lives.
There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn't.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It's obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won't get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you've not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won't need it, it won't change anything.
Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won't say she'd do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.
I'm not and have never in this post debated about who will fund what. They made a moral stance that "There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide." My point was to show how flawed that stance is. Which people still seem to disagree with. It seems like to most people giving $10 to Israel or $10 Billion is the same thing and causes the same amount of harm. Nothing but rigid morals that end up hurting more people in the long run.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn't going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can't.
Oh, I assure you... they can, and they will.
How?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905
He said on Oct. 11 that a future Trump administration would “fully support Israel defeating, dismantling, and permanently destroying the terrorist group Hamas,” while telling the Republican Jewish Coalition later that month that Hamas fighters “will burn forever in the eternal pit of hell." That month, his campaign also said that, if elected again, he would bar Gaza residents from entering the U.S. as part of an expanded travel ban.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/04/politics/trump-israel-comments/index.html
Former President Donald Trump said that Israel needs to “finish what they started” and “get it over with fast,” as he continued arguing Israel was “losing the PR war”
“You’ve got to get it over with, and you have to get back to normalcy. And I’m not sure that I’m loving the way they’re doing it, because you’ve got to have victory. You have to have a victory, and it’s taking a long time,” Trump said in an interview with The Hugh Hewitt Show that aired Thursday.
Trump defended comments he made recently in an interview with Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, in which he said Israel needed to “finish up” its war with Hamas
Yep, all things the Biden admin is doing.
Yah, and Biden isn't running for president. A lot of people, like Trump, seem to forget that. You asked, he showed then you just answered with what-aboutism.
Harris is his VP and has promised to continue his policies.
Source on her saying she plans to follow all his policies exactly with no changes?
She repeats the Biden admins stance right here.
Fellas, if you repeat the party line, does that mean you're planning on deviating from the party line?
Where are the nuances?
But it isn't happening that way so it doesn't matter.
You're debate-broing in defense of a genocidal admin.
You're debate-broing in defense of a genocidal admin.
Again, you are debate-broing here. The point is that both the DNC and GOP are doing their best to arm Israel, and that will not change.
So you're debatelording.