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 😊.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -57 hours ago

    Ding! Ding! Here is the correct answer.

    I’m beginning to think that liberals and lefties have no clue how government works and they want a strongman/dictator as much as the magahat idiots. They just want one that aligns with their beliefs instead.

    The POTUS is NOT all powerful and can make what ever decisions they want. Controlling the house and senate is far more important than whoever is living in the White House. The House and Senate writes the laws and checks to pay for everything. AND they ratify the treaties making them formally binding.

    If you want to stop the genocide, elect the people in the house and senate that will effect the actions needed to make it happen.

    • macabrett[they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      87 hours ago

      Waiting several election cycles to end a genocide is insane and there is no world in which that is the moral, ethical, or logical path forward. Hope this helps!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -46 hours ago

        But it IS the process to get it done. I never said it was ideal. If you don’t like the process, then vote for those that WILL change the process. But that takes time. Until then, we ARE stuck with the laws we currently have in place. That is the reality of the situation. I hope this helps you understand representative democracy vs a dictatorship.

      • @MonkRome
        link
        English
        -67 hours ago

        You know you can communicate with your current senator and representative right? Representative is literally their name, they represent you, if enough people apply pressure to the point they think their job is at risk, they will often magically have a “change of heart”.

          • @MonkRome
            link
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            I’ve actually worked in politics, the amount of people that find it easier to give up because the system is deeply flawed instead of actually doing the hard work of change is astounding. If you want things to change, you have to make your voice heard on something more than lemmy. Representatives nearly all want to keep their jobs. If you show them your motivated enough to contact them, it shows them it’s important enough to you to sway your future vote. I’ve talked to many representatives in my life, at least on the left they generally see their job as representing constituent interests. If enough pressure is applied, they will often change their vote/introduce legislation, etc.

            But they are not on lemmy getting the political temperature from keyboard warriors with more snark than braincells.

              • @MonkRome
                link
                English
                -3
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                They aren’t mutually exclusive and both involve the same thing. The only reason money matters is because it is used to sway voters, people showing they are not swayed by the propaganda invalidates the money.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  36 hours ago

                  Are you familiar with the term lobbying and how it shares a bedroom wall with bribery? Individual votes usually matter little to none in the grand scheme of things, and there’s next to no evidence that politicians above the local level give a shit about individuals throughout a huge swathe of the US. Governatorial election promises in the southeastern US are almost universally lies about quality of life improvements, from healthcare changes in florida benefitting no one to roadwork that never happens being promised every election cycle in alabama and mississippi. There is a HUGE disconnect between representatives and their constituents in these states, and they’re not the only ones.

                  Realistically, that money is not being used effectively to sway anyone, especially when little is actually used for propaganda, and weak vectors are chosen. Many campaigns are still running on outmoded methods of contact, like outdated lists of people for cold mailing, text messages that wind up in your spam filter, and shock value ads that only serve to annoy and change VERY few minds about anything.

                  You have a very optimistic outlook on how any politician views a letter or email from a constituent. Within my whole lifetime, I cannot name ONE politician in the US that has changed course over constituent contact. Not for any single thing. That’s why someone asked if you were eight years old earlier; most people from 25-40 years of age have, at this point, accepted that the current system does not operate in the way that we were taught in school. Instead, we have this broken system where the cries of the masses enter the void, and MAYBE ONE “representative” echoes them to a person or place where change can begin. The ones that do are decried so unbelievably fast it makes your head spin, and the ones that retain office while doing so are treated like crazy extremists by any media that could inform people of their goals, so there’s no hope of popular/uninformed support.

                  • @MonkRome
                    link
                    English
                    -11 hour ago

                    I’m not at all optimistic. We have a broken system and what power we have left has been ceded to cynicism. Selling cynicism is powerful peoples most effective tool. Convince people they have no power, and they will just stay home. I’ve personally been involved with citizen lobbying many times in my life. I’ve been a part of minimum wage laws being passed, legal reform, net neutrality locally and nationally, school funding that saved schools, first amendment protection laws, etc. Locally, state, and federal. But it requires you have to get off your ass and actually try. Yes in south eastern states you have a bunch of crooked assholes that won’t listen to you, that’s why voting left is so important. Unlike the right, even moderate Dems will work with you if you force them to the table with popular political action. You have to elect them in and then do the hard work of political action.

                    Furthermore, lobbying is something ANYONE can do, you don’t need money, you literally schedule an appointment with your legislative office and then you go there and talk. I’ve done it multiple times, and it is absolutely effective. Those that get involved determine the future, not every politician is a criminal, many of them are people exactly like you and me. The got fed up with the system and ran for office.

                    Yes, our political system is fucked up, but selling cynicism when we still barely have a democracy makes things worse. We could have no democracy at all, and we very well might shortly. But while we still have one, I suggest actually fucking trying for once.