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 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
I disagree with equating “I can’t vote for a president who wants to continue to help commit a genocide” as “I expect a utopia and will settle for nothing less”. I’m not going to vote for Jill Stein or whichever third party candidate, but I don’t blame people who do. I blame party leadership for their failures. If they have a better vision for the future, it is their job to convince people that they are the best for the job. Right now, Dems are choosing to gamble their own votes so they can keep helping fascists commit a genocide and what increasingly appears to be a war of expansion and conquest in Lebanon.
Hell yeah. I have voted in every primary I could since I hit age 18.
You can, and you should be. Being mad isn’t the same as being surprised.
Totally agree on this point, and I don’t know why you assume that I’m one of the many who choose to spend four years at brunch before starting to care about politics again.
Because you’re fighting me on the fact that the people are the ones with true power.
I’m arguing against the idea that electing Kamala, then expecting to be able to move her left after the election, is a viable plan. If more people didn’t tune out once January rolls around, then maybe it would be more feasible. But you and i are in agreement that a lot of people simply tune out once the election is over. Libs who protested kids in cages under Trump ignored kids in cages under Biden.
Voters have leverage now. If Kamala wants our votes, then believe me I would be thrilled to see her earn them.
It’s a false leverage. The only thing it will do is make things worse for yourself. That was plain from the onset.
Why is kamala willing to lose rather than earn more votes from the left then?