You're viewing a single thread.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the amount of people calling those wholly opposed to complicity in genocide as "single issue voters". Sure, if genocide isn't enough of a concern for you to oppose candidates that are complicit, then I guess you can call it "single issue".
We're talking genocide here, so I'm going to compare this to the most known genocide on the planet. Imagine if we knew about and could see the Holocaust occurring as it happened when it started, and FDR was funding the Reich including circumventing congress. Would you expect people to still vote for FDR, or would you expect people to oppose his candidacy? This caliber of rhetoric as well as this post has turned this leftist away from my plan to vote for Biden. Nice work folks. I'll be voting for Cornel West and trying to keep the liberal trifecta in my state legislature this year.
If Trump wins, funding for Israel will increase, and even more Palestinians will die. So basically, you're valuing your purity over human lives. Which is quite fascist, if you think about it.
"Opposing genocide is fascist" is certainly a take.
No, it's fucking not. Cornel West opposes funding to Israel, supports a 2 state solution, and supports the same issues strawmanned by lady liberty. I value the end of a genocide as well as a socialist economy. If neither of the mainstream candidates will stop the genocide, I'm going to vote for the only candidate that wants to stop the genocide as well as handle the other issues I care about, in a way I'd align with. My barely tepid patience with Biden and supporters like you has run out.
I would agree with this if not for the fact that you live in an absolute farce of a democracy where voting for a third party is nothing but a protest vote. Which seems fine to do in a state that will vote majority democrat anyway, but plain irresponsible in one that won't.
Discouraging people from voting 3rd party only ever hurts Democrats and liberal candidates. We're not just electing the president, which is where most of the 3rd parties appear, we're voting for everything. Telling people in battleground states that voting for "their guy" is pointless will stop the liberal and progressive people that support Cornel and Stein from going to vote. Those people vote Democrat down-ballot.
I upvoted you for at least naming a potential candidate, rather than vaguely saying “someone else”.
The reality is that either Trump or Biden will win and if you're not voting for either of them then, practically speaking, you might as well not vote at all. Third party candidates only ever get a tiny fraction of the overall vote and that's not going to change this time.
I'm not casting a protest vote. I'm voting honestly because there is no way to strategically vote for the less genocidal candidate.
Biden is the less genocide candidate. He's been getting aid into Gaza, putting pressure on Israel, and directing funds towards humanitarian aid. All of that would cease immediately under trump.
Realistically, the best way to reduce genocide is through protest, donations, and activism. Electorally, the best option is to vote for Biden in the hopes we can keep trump from making thing unimaginably worse.
clearly my message went over your head. Either a candidate supports a genocide, or they don't. Biden can wag his finger all he wants, he's still complicit in genocide. The truth is that he's handling Israel more conservatively than Ronald Fucking Reagan.
If you put things in such stark black and white terms then every president has supported genocide; they've been funding Israel since the beginning, and America itself is built on stolen, colonized, and occupied land.
In truth elections have consequences, and across the board things will be substantially worse under trump than Biden.
I think you forgot that I stated I'm a leftist. Specifically I'm an anarchist. I already think every president in history is a criminal. I'm talking about what's happening in the here-and-now in the midst of the second Nakba.
Didn't you say you were going to vote for Cornel West? What are his thoughts on the genocide of Native Americans and whether the land should be returned to them?
He made a statement on Indigenous People's Day about what he already plans to do and states plainly that he needs to do more work as a scholar and activist to learn about how to bring justice to the Native Americans that were genocided in pursuit of Manifest Destiny.
To this end, today I’m pleased to announce that as president, I will establish a Federal Office for Tribal Equity and Liberation ... This office will be charged with guiding and assisting me with confronting and dismantling challenges specific to our Indigenous siblings - from access to clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment, to ending the epidemic of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, to ensuring that all treaties are upheld and respected in ways that are perpetually monitored and evaluated to increase justice and maximum efficacy. This office will also inform my administration on the best and most expeditious ways to codify and enforce FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent), as well as the Land Back Commission I’m committed to forming as part of my Policy Pillars for a Movement Rooted in Truth, Love, and Justice.
Permanently Deleted
Also: vote in primaries
He just pledged more money so they can keep bombing kids. I'm not in the US but it's the same deal here in the UK. I'm not gonna vote for a guy who is trampling on my rights just to avoid the guy who does it a bit more, I'm gonna vote for who I want. We have first past the post voting here which makes my vote "wasted" but voting for the slightly less evil guy isn't the way to fix it.
Your moral purity will kill more people. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The "if Trump wins" folks are angry at the implication that their vote is tacit support of genocide, but are fine with the implication that not voting for Biden is tacit support for Trump
And I'm deeply uncomfortable thinking that giving a chance to the candidate that thinks Hitler is a great guy AND the USA should do some of the same things as Nazi Germany while he'll ALSO keep funding Nazi Germany, but even harder, is sane - let alone even a viable argument for those already opposed to the current choice already funding genocide.
Even the EU is learning how stupid Americans are and are making plans to not rely on it at all + make entry harder (next year you won't be able to travel to just countries here for extended stay easily anymore by passport alone for example). And dumbasses like you are proving there's a severe lack of critical thinking.
If these are the best candidates we can put up then maybe we deserve to lose our spot as the world's last super power.
USA definitely deserved to lose that spot long ago, but NOT if it means China takes its place - don't think y'all are so special as to be the only world super power. Pre - Xi maybe, but Xi has made it clear they want to go the "world emperor" path and China would also be a terrible Steward. At least the USA doesn't kidnap foreign citizens / expats to make them disappear, or actively trying to annex loca countries anymore.
But we do know that Trump would do something similar (Khashoggi being a good example). The fact is the USA would still be a world leader because the existing economic and military connections it has wouldn't disappear overnight - the only difference is the world would be a worse place.
Although Biden is obviously a terrible candidate, it's just not even a contest that Trump is greatly, significantly worse. The Democrats are definitely seeing a "cry wolf" effect because although previous Republican candidates have indeed been terrible, none (aside from Bush Jr) have really threatened the power structure of the USA as much as Trump term 2 would.
If you still have doubts, read Project 2025. They are literally telling you they will turn the USA into a Christo-fascist autocracy.
Naw. We'd have the same headwinds China is facing. Yes support in developing countries would be buyable. However the EU, Canada, and Australia would move away from us. We'd feel that, right in the GDP. Our Asian allies would likely maintain a veneer of friendship to help ward off China but they would also be moving to not depend on us anymore.
People underestimate just how much power and money the US gets from it's alliances. So while yes, China is there, they wouldn't move to take our position. The world would just return to a mutli-polar system faster than it already is.
As to Trump vs Biden. I refer to my comment above. Genocide is a deal breaker no matter what party letter is next to your name.
Do you pay taxes?
I think it depends on how people/voters see the particular conflict. When Bush jr put a genocide on the Taliban, he had a lot of support. When Obama put one on ISIS, he had a lot of support. When Biden stopped US support for genocides in Yemen or Rwanda, voters didn't really seem to care one way or another.
When did Biden interfere with the Rwandan genocide, famously known for global inaction as the Hutus killed nearly 1 million Tutsis? Fuck off with this transparently bad faith talking point.
I'm so very sorry, of course I meant the Rwanda supported genocide in Eastern Congo. Can you explain on why you see this as 'bad faith'?
it was a bad, wrong, evil thing that happened when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not a genocide. Same with how Obama handled drone strikes, well, everywhere in the region. I did not have the context that you unintentionally referenced the wrong events and it was the simplest point to address. I apologize for leveraging that accusation
I think it's weird you're downplaying these other genocides to defend taking a stronger position on Gaza
The Lancet estimates 2,5% of the Iraq population killed because of the US invasion between 2003-2006. They're nearing 1,5% in the Gaza strip (but it's slowing down). So I would think it's weird to say it's normal people are protesting the Gaza one so much while not really caring about the Iraq one, back in the day.
(Sorry I hope I'm somewhat exagerating but I also hope you see my point)
What you're hoping nobody looks up is that the Lancet decided most deaths during that period were attributable to the invasion. Even gang and tribal violence. In the breakdowns they only say ~180,000 deaths were due to coalition actions. Which is in line with most other studies.
So that's about 4,600 deaths a month. Altogether 0.6 percent of the population. Per month? 0.017%
Now let's do Gaza. We hit 30,000 deaths in how many months? 5? Hell let's give them 6. That's 5,000 people a month in a county a tenth of Iraq's size. Literally 2.3 million people. 1.3 percent of the population, double the coalition numbers from Iraq.
And that's before the hospitals were too destroyed to keep counting deaths. Before we've tallied the death toll of Israel's man made famine. Before we've dug the bodies out from under the rubble.
Don't try to whataboutism this with bullshit numbers. It's not a good argument even when the US actually did something. But trying to make it up too? You deserve to be laughed out of here.
So, if I look at your whataboutism argument
Why would you want to include every single death in Gaza and then coldly say 450.000 excess deaths (read that number again) in Iraq 'don't really count'?
Because the coalition didn't encourage the civil war in Iraq and they pumped as much aid into Iraq as they could by air, land, and sea.
Israel is doing the exact opposite. They want people to fight Hamas. They are restricting aid. They are preventing civilians from leaving the combat area.
Everyone wants to forget that in 2004 the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds fought mercilessly over territory. It's why their constitution is set up to have a leader from each faction.
Lmao I'm sorry. You think the US committed genocide in Afghanistan and Syria? I must have missed the part where we carpet bombed them and withheld food.
US-backed forces succeed in making Raqqa 80 percent “uninhabitable”
Do you think they were sending in food trucks while they were bombing anyone trying to flee the city?
So now we're pulling out the propaganda pieces. This would be the first time I've ever heard of the US bombing civilians excavating Raqqa. That's just not corroborated anywhere. Even Amnesty International blames ISIS for holding the civilians there. They also put the civilian death toll at 1,500, which is a bloody miracle if there were 25,000 civilians being held hostage in the city.
The closest thing I could find is a relief web article saying the US didn't help civilians evacuate. Which isn't surprising because that's not something that happens unless you're the defending military. And then it's usually actually the police and first responders anyways.
And I'm not surprised 80 percent of the city was destroyed. The only enemy left were the ISIS fighters that had mentally prepared themselves to die fighting. They weren't going to let a single inch of ground go uncontested.
Edit to add - You still haven't explained how that would be a genocide either though. There was a massive evacuation of civilians before the siege started. It's a city of 500k-750k people.
I've linked you an article where you can learn about the US military 'shooting every boat they saw crossing the river'. I can imagine you haven't really heard about the details of the siege of Raqqa because, well, most people didn't want to know. There's a lot you can find though, same goes for sieges like Mosul or Fallujah: a final siege against a dug in enemy is never going to be pretty. White phosporous, thermobaric weapons, ... War crimes. It's either that or a lot more casualties for the attackers.
And regarding your final paragraph: Israel is encouraging massive evacuation of civilians as well. It's not like they're not letting anyone out of Rafah, it's just that Egypt is not letting any refugees through (unless they pay) which results in them running around in circles. But rest assured that they would not have let Raqqa 'of the hook' if those civilians hadn't left
Lmao no they aren't. They designated a tiny area, and they don't allow them to leave Gaza. Then they keep attacking into the area they forced them to move to. When you allow people to evacuate you do so to a non combat area.
And again. That's not corroborated anywhere. Groups like Amnesty International have no problem coming after the US.
You're also still not talking about the 95 percent of Raqqa that was evacuated. If that was a genocidal act they would not have been allowed to do so.
Can you cite a source that they're not allowing them to leave Gaza?
Since Oct. 7, Israeli authorities have continued to block Palestinians in Gaza from fleeing into neighboring Israel to seek even temporary refuge from the hostilities, in violation of international law.