135
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
135 points (78.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7192 readers
1 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn't.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It's obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won't get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you've not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn't going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can't.
But it isn't happening that way so it doesn't matter.
You're debate-broing in defense of a genocidal admin.
You're debate-broing in defense of a genocidal admin.
Again, you are debate-broing here. The point is that both the DNC and GOP are doing their best to arm Israel, and that will not change.
So you're debatelording.