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.

  • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
    525·
    2 months ago

    Lol, living in a world where “anti-genocide” is actually a thing people say is messed up.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      142·
      2 months ago

      I think is actually kind of nice.

      I mean of all species living on earth, human is the only species that would consider genocide a bad thing. Some random plant on prehistoric ages would just produce oxygen an cause a mass extinction without sweating it.

      And for most human history Humans would actually try to genocide others.

      At least now there is people who is anti-genocide. And it’s probably a growing stance.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        61·
        2 months ago

        Humpback whales have been seen interfering with killer whales that are attacking seals or dolphins. Maybe they don’t see it as “genocide” as they don’t have a concept of the idea, but there is at least some evidence of another species upset at, and willing to stop, the killing of another. I think by that logic, if they could understand the concept of genocide, they would consider it a bad thing.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          23·
          2 months ago

          I certainly doubt it. They would probably just be protecting themselves and their own kind.

          If a humpback whale have experiences of killing whales attacking them or their offspring probably thought it was a good idea to do as possible to interfere with them. Probably would carry a genocide on orcas giving the chance.

          I don’t think it is out of mercy. Mercy is something that is learning growing in a better environment that any animal growing in the brutal natural world.

    • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      I was always confused by the polcie criminalizing antifa. So fascism good, anti fascism bad these days? Genocide is the same. If you are anti genocide you’ll be brutalized.