I will never look down on someone who voted or refused to vote because of thier conscience. Obviously for this specific question, that excludes people claiming to care about gaza, but still voting for trump. There was no illusion that trump was going to do anything positive for gaza.
I know plenty of supposed leftists (really these are people who spend 90% of their time criticizing liberals and calling them "shitlibs") who are relieved that Trump is in office, say that he is better than Kamala on Gaza, and believe that America's descent into fascism will spur a revolution that will save humanity.
In fairness, it is possible that it takes a decent into fascismto wake the people up. Or it could be like ww2, where it gives the world a common enemy to defeat. Noone knows. So they could be right. Less probable things have happened... like trumps 1st term. Noone saw that coming 4 years before it happened.
The reality is that noone knows what the result of thier actions will really be on the world stage.
Single issue voting is a reactionary tendency. I don't think moral people are going "lets pick one issue and decide based on that". This is a person whose easily manipulated and not moral.
A moral person goes "am I doing more harm than good" and puts effort into engaging with that.
You are welcome to your own definition of things like moral, only, and pure hypocrisy. But understand that your lack of tolerance is why many of those people didn't vote.
Germany changed to fascism, and now look at them. The world united against them, and now they are a democracy again. Maybe it's like ripping off a bandaid. Or like addiction (in this case to money and greed), where you often have to hit rock bottom to truely recover. I have no idea. No one knows. So no point spending your hate on nonvoters, focus it on the ones actively doing wrong. And don't get distracted.
When all we can vote for are one of two people who don't represent us, but instead represent themselves and the rich... I would say we are close enough.
I wonder what would happen if the Democrats tried to activate those chronic non-voters, rather than trying to flip those moderate republicans i keep being told are real
Voting is a power that has been consistently weakened for the past four decades in the United States, and is completely useless in a two party system with two captured parties. Political change has historically been accomplished with money and violence; it is extraordinarily rare for countries to vote themselves out of the slide to fascism.
Getting out and organizing strikes/protests and building third-party grassroots political movements are absolutely great suggestions; neither are voting. Both of them require a significant amount of additional effort than voting. In fact, you may even notice that one requires money, and the other often implies a threat of further violence.
A large reason we are in this is because Americans see voting as the be-all end-all to their political participation. It is the absolute weakest tool to actually enact change in the U.S. political system.
Getting out and organizing strikes/protests and building third-party grassroots political movements are absolutely great suggestions;
Yes, voting isn't the only action. As a union steward, I'm well aware. People should use multiple tools, but at a MINIMUM people need to vote(as long as we remain mildly democratic).
It is the absolute weakest tool to actually enact change in the U.S. political system.
It is a very strong tool in preventing down sliding.