so close! it was actually
- harris
- trump
- and some third parties
on the top of the ballot. this post is to cause division and make you angry, nothing more. nothing is as simple as this bullshit oversimplification and i’m sick of this narrative of attacking a provably insignificant minority instead of attacking the individuals who are still fucking giving unquestioning aid to an apartheid and genocide state
Or, alternatively, this is intended to clown on .ml users, because it's hilarious and accurate. I don't think anybody on lemmy would not be cool with attacking Joe and Kamala and Trump on this issue, and the vote total of your comment clearly shows that lmao. (And let's be honest, you knew it would be popular here too). In fact, lemmy is constantly attacking the US on supporting the Israeli genocide, as they should, but funnily enough, nobody here seems to attack China on the Uyghur genocide, which is the point of this meme. By acknowledging that Israel is committing genocide, China would give further impetus for investigation following the UN report which asked for such regarding the Uyghur genocide.
But whatever I guess
The second and third options were basically the same, imo.
Wouldn’t that have been wild if it were the only thing on the ballot?
Where are all the Democrats saying that Democrats would be anti-genocide after the election?
Guess who is still in power, and guess who just backed out of their ultimatum and refused to reduce military aid to Israel even after they failed to let aid in.
and yet we still find the time to accuse a miniscule proportion of Arab-Americans struggling through trauma most of us can’t imagine instead of literally the men doing the violence
thanks for being sane tho :)
Imagine thinking this is clever.
The party who funded the wholesale destruction of Gaza is somehow the "less genocide party".
People get your head out of your asses. This is embarassing as a human being.
The party who funded the wholesale destruction of Gaza is somehow the “less genocide party”.
The funding was passed with bipartisan support, and always has. The funding is also supposed to have guardrails that limit it being used for genocide, and while the Dems are ineffectual at actually enforcing those guardrails Trump has already said that he wants Israel to finish the job and tends to follow through on his worst statements.
Anyone who chose not to vote for the possibility of less genocide (on top of a million other negative things that will come out of a Trump presidency) chose more genocide.
It’s so embarrassing. Both American political parties are enthusiastically pro genocide.
Let's leave aside all of Kamala's statements condemning Netanyahu and his genocide for a moment. And let's instead ask whether you're capable of perceiving the difference between one genocide and three. That difference is millions of lives. Do millions of lives matter to you, or are they just a statistic, inseparable from the thousands already dead in Gaza?
TBF, the first two choices would have to be "a lot of genocide" and "much much more genocide".
If Kamala had been elected, the left would have been free to slam her on the Gaza issue, AND she would have been free to break from Biden and say "fuck you" to Netanyahu. She had to toe the line during the election and so did we. Once the election was won, we could have rallied. We'd have been united finally, and she wouldn't have needed Biden anymore. Now instead of pressuring a sympathetic president to end a genocide, we have to arm ourselves to die fighting a fascist president. There is no more path to less genocide. That path closed. All three genocides are gonna happen.
Zelensky is now trying to arm his country with nukes because he knows he can't rely on America. Drag is talking to politicians in drag's country about refugee visas for America. We're all getting ready for mitigation and survival. We could have all been focusing on the Gaza issue instead. We could have done something.
Sorry, were you around for the past several elections? Perhaps the 2020 elections where, upon the progressives banding with Biden to get him elected with the expectation that we would be able to "push him to the left", the Democratic party decided that the reason they didn't win more seats was because Progressives had damaged their chances of winning, and they must be marginalized. Or perhaps the 2016 elections where, the target of a long running hate campaign was preferred by the party over the popular progressive candidate who was then blamed for his supporters not being won over. Or the 2012 elections where the incumbent Democrat failed to deliver on progressive policies and was a high water mark for drone strikes, but progressives helped bring the win over the candidate Republicans weren't excited for.
I voted for Harris in hopes that she'd beat out Trump despite how much she and Biden before her discarded progressive policy. I was under no expectation of Progressives being able to do a damn thing to reach her.
Last two choices are the same.
And the third choice would have to be "I'm fine with either"
Is this advocating voting third party? Because that isn't how first past the post works, third parties won't win.
Is this advocating voting third party?
The exact opposite.
Because that isn't how first past the post works, third parties won't win.
That's why the ambivalent option is the 3rd one, because the only two options they could win are bad but that was the option that so many "anti-genocide" people chose, because moral high ground is more important than trying to engineer practical outcomes.
