If there was a chance to save them don’t you think the Arabs in America would have taken it? It’s not like they’re any strangers to voting for the lesser of two evils on this topic. Democrats were insistent on letting Israel have a free reign just like Republicans would. So they decided to say a big fuck you to the electoral system and vote third party.
Kamala was not insistent that Israel have free reign like Trump was. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. In the context of these two candidates, they are clearly not the same.
Voting third party is not a “fuck you” to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.
A third party vote is a waste of a vote and no different from abstaining. A third party vote is simply shrugging in the face a fascism. Trump loves it, because it opened the way to his election.
Yes, just like Biden. And we all saw what he actually wanted, didn’t we?
Voting third party is not a “fuck you” to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.
Yes it is. It’s a big fuck you to the Democrats who campaigned on thinking people would vote for them automatically because they’re not Trump. That failed epically.
You are changing the subject instead of defending your position.
Biden has nothing to do with it. He wasn’t running for President.
Kamala’s position was to strive for a ceasefire, and Trump’s position was to give Israel whatever they need to get the job done.
By voting 3rd party, you’ve taken the position that these two options are identical in your eyes. Either Israel continues with likely similar reluctant support, or Israel continues with encouragement and unlimited support. Which do you think will lead to more Palestinian deaths?
On top of this, this was Kamala’s weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you’re willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too. All of this so you can be on your high horse and pretend to be morally superior while enabling the worst future for everyone. Good job.
No I’m not. Harris is part of the Biden administration and she’s made it clear she wasn’t going to deviate from the current position that America currently has under Biden’s leadership. That means the same empty platitudes along with unwavering support for Israel no matter how many escalations Israel has. She didn’t strive for a ceasefire. That’s just meaningless rhetoric given she had no actual plan for it and coupled it with being insistent that “Israel has a right to defend itself” or Walz’s “I support Israel’s right to expand it’s borders” as they perform the wholesale slaughter of an entire ethnicity and culture.
On top of this, this was Kamala’s weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you’re willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too.
I acknowledged how bad Trump is in my above comment. I know what Trump means for a lot of minorities in America as well as the international political stage. I wasn’t talking about endorsing Trump. I said that the whole strategy of getting the Arab-American vote by saying “Trump is worse” was a very shitty strategy that backfired horribly. It’s common knowledge that a political candidate is not entitled by a vote simply by being the better of two options. You have to make people want to vote for you. As evidenced by the results of the elections. If she wanted the Arab-American vote, a key demographic in a critical swing state, she should have worked towards it. Not simply say “Well Trump is worse, so vote for me”, as she supports the slaughter of their people. It’s just an incredibly tone deaf and cruel thing to say to a population that is facing what they are facing.
None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.
I’ll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:
Premise one:
Kamala’s policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump’s.
You’ve asserted without evidence that Kamala’s stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden’s established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump’s policy of providing even more unconditional resources.
Premise two:
If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.
You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.
Premise three:
No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election
You’ve also not refuted this in any way
Conclusion:
Because Kamala’s policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.
Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.
And it was an obvious lie, because she wouldn’t commit to an arms embargo or sanctions or any kind of consequences. She was just lying so that liberals could pretend like they weren’t voting for genocide.
They were not equally pro genocide. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. These are not the same, one is clearly better.
Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?
Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn’t make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.
Tell the families who are dead and asked to vote FOR genocide that they lack nuance when they refuse to support either of the people who want their people genocide.
At what point does genocide cross the line for you?
What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.
If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I’ll choose the better world every time. I won’t sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it’s despicable that you did.
Voting is not an endorsement. We had the choice between a candidate that was bad for Palestine, and a candidate that was even worse for Palestine.
It’s a pretty simple argument that someone who cares about Palestine should vote for the less bad candidate.
If there was a chance to save them don’t you think the Arabs in America would have taken it? It’s not like they’re any strangers to voting for the lesser of two evils on this topic. Democrats were insistent on letting Israel have a free reign just like Republicans would. So they decided to say a big fuck you to the electoral system and vote third party.
Kamala was not insistent that Israel have free reign like Trump was. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. In the context of these two candidates, they are clearly not the same.
Voting third party is not a “fuck you” to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.
A third party vote is a waste of a vote and no different from abstaining. A third party vote is simply shrugging in the face a fascism. Trump loves it, because it opened the way to his election.
Yes, just like Biden. And we all saw what he actually wanted, didn’t we?
Yes it is. It’s a big fuck you to the Democrats who campaigned on thinking people would vote for them automatically because they’re not Trump. That failed epically.
So we might as well just let Trump win and kill the Palestinians faster. What a champion of Palestine you are.
Tell me something. What in the past 14 months has led you to believe that Biden was holding Israel back?
You are changing the subject instead of defending your position.
Biden has nothing to do with it. He wasn’t running for President.
Kamala’s position was to strive for a ceasefire, and Trump’s position was to give Israel whatever they need to get the job done.
By voting 3rd party, you’ve taken the position that these two options are identical in your eyes. Either Israel continues with likely similar reluctant support, or Israel continues with encouragement and unlimited support. Which do you think will lead to more Palestinian deaths?
On top of this, this was Kamala’s weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you’re willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too. All of this so you can be on your high horse and pretend to be morally superior while enabling the worst future for everyone. Good job.
No I’m not. Harris is part of the Biden administration and she’s made it clear she wasn’t going to deviate from the current position that America currently has under Biden’s leadership. That means the same empty platitudes along with unwavering support for Israel no matter how many escalations Israel has. She didn’t strive for a ceasefire. That’s just meaningless rhetoric given she had no actual plan for it and coupled it with being insistent that “Israel has a right to defend itself” or Walz’s “I support Israel’s right to expand it’s borders” as they perform the wholesale slaughter of an entire ethnicity and culture.
I acknowledged how bad Trump is in my above comment. I know what Trump means for a lot of minorities in America as well as the international political stage. I wasn’t talking about endorsing Trump. I said that the whole strategy of getting the Arab-American vote by saying “Trump is worse” was a very shitty strategy that backfired horribly. It’s common knowledge that a political candidate is not entitled by a vote simply by being the better of two options. You have to make people want to vote for you. As evidenced by the results of the elections. If she wanted the Arab-American vote, a key demographic in a critical swing state, she should have worked towards it. Not simply say “Well Trump is worse, so vote for me”, as she supports the slaughter of their people. It’s just an incredibly tone deaf and cruel thing to say to a population that is facing what they are facing.
None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.
I’ll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:
Premise one: Kamala’s policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump’s.
You’ve asserted without evidence that Kamala’s stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden’s established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump’s policy of providing even more unconditional resources.
Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.
You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.
Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election
You’ve also not refuted this in any way
Conclusion: Because Kamala’s policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.
Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.
And it was an obvious lie, because she wouldn’t commit to an arms embargo or sanctions or any kind of consequences. She was just lying so that liberals could pretend like they weren’t voting for genocide.
Quite impressive how you can read minds and see the future.
We had two candidates that were both pro-Palestinian genocide.
They were not equally pro genocide. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. These are not the same, one is clearly better.
She wanted a ceasefire, but keep sending them arms unconditionally.
Regardless, lite genocide is still genocide.
So might as well let the worst one win then? If there’s going to be a genocide, might as well be a good one? Gross.
No matter who won, Palestinians are being genocide. There is no “worse one” here. Genocide is genocide.
Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?
Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn’t make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.
Tell the families who are dead and asked to vote FOR genocide that they lack nuance when they refuse to support either of the people who want their people genocide.
At what point does genocide cross the line for you?
What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.
If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I’ll choose the better world every time. I won’t sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it’s despicable that you did.