Your problem is one of timeframes.
You might, though I personally don't think so, be right on a single election time frame.
They're definitely right on a timescale spanning multiple elections.
Right now, you are forced to vote for someone committing genocide because people kept choosing the lesser evil in previous general elections, and the party cheats in the primaries.
The situation you're in, right now, disproves your argument.
You're literally simping FOR THE WORST CRIME IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMMIT!
It's not a card.
It's obvious you would use the same style arguments as a Democrat in the 1880s.
TheDoozer@lemmy.world is not a Nazi, silly. They're a liberal, and liberals are good, dontcha know?
Because morality is defined by what you believe, not your actions, so of course they're good. Actively participating in a genocide doesn't make them evil because they believe the right things.
Who has killed more civilians?
By multiple orders of magnitude?
This is like "Man, I don't like the sun and light bulbs, they're both so bright."
It's literally the worst crime in the world.
Davidgro out here trying to minimize the literal worst crime in the world for political reasons.
Harris did not win the primary.
Also, in several States, the Democratic party broke the law, and their own internal rule to make sure that Biden was the only candidate on the ballot.
It wasn't a democratic selection, no matter how much you want to imply that it was.
I just discovered my neighbor is a moonie, and proudly described himself as such.
I was surprised as I thought it was a derogatory term for them.
And I'm not sure I'll ever agree with someone that is willing to overlook their ally committing genocide in the forlorn hope that that ally won't target the group you identify with.
You're not minimizing murder.
You're just trying to placate the murderer.
You do support that path.
You are actively doing so right now.
The point about genocide being binary is that someone is either willing to commit it, or they aren't.
Biden and Harris(and Trump, presumably) are willing to commit genocide. The basis of that willingess is an underlying belief that some people matter more than other people. And some people don't matter at all.
And you hope that by supporting the people that hold that belief that they won't add your group to the list of people that don't matter to them.
There were lots of Germans that felt the same way. We have literal books of history and poems telling us that they were wrong. Fuck, I know you've heard at least one poem making this point.
'''First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
'''
That's you. Doing everything you can to ignore the Democrats already signaling that they would be willing to throw trans people under the bus.
You think my side are being morally condescending and use phrases like 'high horse' But that is just people who support the Democratic party trying to justify their own willingness to work with genociders. I'm not trying to pass moral judgement on you and your side.
I'm trying to explain to you that the moral quandary is not new. It is old, and has happened many times before, and your strategy HAS NEVER WORKED BEFORE.
Imagine you have two children, and someone kidnaps you and them and tells you to choose which one lives, and if you don't choose, they will kill both.
If you don't pick, who is responsible for killing the children? You for not choosing or the person that pulled the trigger?
EDIT: not sure why the poem is not formatting correctly.
Pretending that the current path doesn't have us give bombs to Israel that they then intentionally drop on hospitals full of children is the path you're choosing.
I literally just watched a little girl hooked up to an IV burn to death from a bomb you paid for.
That is the path you support.
100 infantry on the frontline is a lot riskier than support personal on an aircraft carrier nearby.
In a ballistic missle exchange, air defense is the front line.There is literally a term for it: SEAD
Any THAAD system will be a target when Iran responds to whatever lunacy Bibi concocts. And, as THAAD systems have to be operated by American military personal, that will mean that American military personal will die by a legitimate military action by Iran.
Seriously, I don't know how this isn't clear.
You apparently don't understand the meaning of the phase 'bad faith'. Not that it would matter, as I'm literally responding to your points. You just don't like them, so you ignore them.
The country of Israel is younger than my still living father. To imply otherwise is to ignore all recent history, and the terrorism that was allowed to create the modern state of Israel. A nation, I might add, that has little to do with the indigenous populations. This bullshit of generations is either bad faith attempts at propaganda, or ignorance bordering on criminal. My father is older than this country.
EDIT:
This is the literal reason I called your statements propaganda. I'm quoting them here since you seemed to miss it the first time, and ignored the point.
Time is linear. Ignoring the rogue state actions that the Iranian RESPONSE was a response to is such a bad faith action it has to be propaganda. You can make anyone look good, if you pick the right starting place to tell a story. Not recognizing that that is a classic propaganda strategy is a education problem for you
You can chose not to vote for a party actively committing the literal worst crime in the world.