I know that the hold that Israel (and the military industrial complex) has on both major political parties is money, Money, MONEY. But there has got to be a breaking point. I thought the breaking point would be the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent children, but alas.

I mean, I will still vote for Harris, because I’m not stupid. I know the alternative is far worse. But I’d rather not have innocent blood on my hands after I fill out that ballot.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 31 points 2 weeks ago (42 children)

If you (or anyone else) will never change your vote about it, why would they adjust their position?

You've given them no downside to continuing to support genocide other than the weight of thousands of innocent dead on their consciences. It should be fairly obvious how much that affects them.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

What are we going to change our vote to? Only two parties can win this year (let's change that) and the other option is worse on this issue.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'll vote for someone who is vocally and demonstrably anti-genocide. If that's neither of the main parties' candidates that's their problem.

I will not vote for genocide.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not voting is a choice. Not voting is saying you're okay with either option. You're OK with fascism because you can't bear to have neoliberalism instead. Maybe you'd rather have genocide of both Arabs and Latin Americans? Maybe you'd rather have a president who has promised to make the genocide worse than one who might put some amount of pressure to make it less bad.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

I'd rather have a president who's anti-genocide, so I'll be voting for one of the anti-genocide candidates.

You're okay with voting for genocide. I'm not.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (39 replies)

load more comments (98 replies)