As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

  • Moxible@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    The US two-party system is a duopoly, so whichever party you vote for doesn’t matter. They are two sides of the same coin pretending to be opposites.

    • abbenm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      21 days ago

      One of the most commonly repeated and least thought through statements in politics.

      Unions stand a better chance of advocating before an NLRB board that has Democratic appointees. The FTC is going to do more to fight monopolies under a Democratic administration. The EPA is going to fight pfas and lithium mining.

      And god almighty is it fucking frustrating to have to say this out loud in a serious conversation to adults, but Justice Elena Kagan makes meaningfully different decisions than Brett fuddrucking Kavanagh. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you can’t acknowledge things like this, I don’t know how to treat you like a serious person.

      For instance, let’s just throw out everything other than the Supreme Court. To maintain the false equivalence, you have to say with a straight face that things like the Janus decision didn’t matter, or that overturning Roe vs Wade didn’t matter, or gutting the voting rights act didn’t matter, or getting rid of Chevron doesn’t matter. If you can make any of those arguments with a straight face, I won’t agree, but I’ll at least believe that you’ve actually thought this through.

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        21 days ago

        The Roe v Wade decision and the Chevron decision literally happened under Biden, a democrat. Before you butter up the Democrats as the second coming of Christ, consider that the Democrats are literally in power and have been for the last four fucking years of hell. It’s not that those decisions don’t matter, it’s that the venn diagram of what your vote can possibly do, and the ways to reverse those decisions, it looks like this: O O

      • azulavoir@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        For a single-issue anti-genocide voter, the US is a duopoly of bad choices. For most anyone else, absolutely correct.

    • ulkesh@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      There is a clear and stark difference between the two current candidates and one of them is a convicted felon. This both-sides-ism is what will get that felon elected.

      Nothing is perfect, the idea is to work toward a “more perfect union.” People seem to ignore that just so they can try to make a point while letting things burn down around them.