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 😊.
Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who’s been actively supporting a genocide?
What message would we be sending if our replacement for them is a guy that wants Isreal to “finish the job” with it? Killing fewer people matters more than accountability
There is not a big difference between one who say finish the job and one who doesn’t say it but give every resources for Israel to finish the job
The message would be that voting Americans are not okay with genocide. Harris is actually culpable, while the idea that Trump would be significantly worse for the Palestinians and Lebanese is just hypothetical. Trump is actually the lesser of two evils this time. The allegations against him don’t amount to genocide by a long shot.
The message will be that Americans chose the guy who is complaining that the massacres are going too slowly
Remember that he was ardently supportive of the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen when he was president. We have seen how he handles this situation. He is absolutely not a lesser evil here.
He’s got a ways to go to prove himself more evil than Harris.
Why is his backing of the Saudi campaign in Yemen not enough to you? The war has a far higher civilian death toll than Israel’s current actions do, the Saudi forces in the area have a long record of likely war crimes including bombing a school bus full of children in Dahyan and declaration of an entire city of 50,000 people as a military target, Trump actually vetoed congress to prevent them from stopping arms sales to SA, and dozens of actual direct American drone strikes were carried out under Trump’s presidency.
Do you think electing Trump will be read as “wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights” by the world?
A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.
Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.
Electing Trump means Harris loses, which means that enough voting Americans believe that genocide is unacceptable to have held her as accountable as our system allows. It will be read as better than the alternative. Electing Harris means that we’ve been sold on genocide by a campaign that has embraced the Cheneys of all people.
… Or more likely, when the guy who was even more anti-Palistine manages to win the election, their takeaway will be to adopt some of those more-anti-Palistine policies and sentiments because they were apparently more popular. You’ve got the overton window backwards
That certainly seems to be the thinking of the Harris campaign.