• MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    The harris campaign is openly hostile to the anti-war anti-genocide vote. They are not interested in trying to get our votes. If they make the calculation that they need the anti-war vote to win they will try to appeal to us but they have decided (so far) that they don’t want us and don’t need us.

    Don’t blame us for not voting for a candidate who doesn’t want our vote and is actively hostile to our position.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      I agree with all of that. Except for the part about possibly appealing to the anti-war voter if it would help them win. There are some – Biden for instance – who clearly would rather lose than do that. I don’t know Harris well enough to judge.

      I think it’s sad that people complain when someone says that they won’t vote for the lesser of two evils. It’s sad because it shows a profound misunderstanding about how democracy is supposed to work, and what they’re entitled to demand from their fellow citizens.

      The largest voting block in every election is the depressed voter. And the reason is that our system is constructed to favor a broken two-party system even at the expense of civil participation that can solve our problems. Millions of people don’t vote because they see no benefit in doing so. The problem to be solved is that the political system has failed these people, not that they aren’t showing sufficient enthusiasm to do paperwork to satisfy the demands of people who feel invested in the outcome of elections.

      The media falsely claims that each candidate has 47% support when really they each have about 30% support, and a larger number of people have not felt any interest in supporting either candidate. That’s a massive failing in reporting and political process.

    • hobovision@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      So you have three options, all having a bad outcome on the most important thing you care about.

      One of the options maybe has better outcomes on some other things you care about.

      Another option has bad outcomes in almost everything you care about, plus maybe even a worse outcome to your most important thing.

      The third option is to leave it up everyone else to pick between the first two.

      I know what I’d pick, what will you do?

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You’re absolutely ignoring their comment. If democrat voters showed a spine and conditioned their vote to an end to the genocide, the democrat leadership may decide that it’s worth it to cater to these voters to win the elections if that’s what they want. By enabling all their actions through “vote blue no matter who” you’re just degrading the democracy further, and postponing the choice 4 more years during which nothing will happen.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 minutes ago

          “If we hold the country hostage, they’ll definitely do what I want before the opposition makes everything irreversibly worse.”

      • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        The only two real options are both pro genocide, pro military industrial complex which tells me this country is fucked there’s nothing I can do to help that. All I can do is follow my conscience and my conscience won’t let me rest if I vote for genocide