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 😊.
Then maybe there is other stuff you care about?
You’re getting one of them. There is no third option.
If you don’ care about the other topics at all, then don’t vote.
Yeah, I care about stopping Trump from building the wall-
Hold on a second, I’m getting some new information
There is a third option.
Please enlighten us? Just a hypothetical or a realistic one?
It’s so real that its on my ballot. There’s even a fourth and fifth option. And a write in option with an infinite number of possibilities.
Hypothetical then.
You can vote for whoever you want. But you will get one of the two.
Voting for someone else is basically the same as not voting. Sure you make a point, but the result will be the same.
Like I said, if there is nothing else you care about, vote for Pedro or whatever.
If you’re saying that you shouldn’t vote unless your candidate has a chance of winning, you might as well tell every Democrat voter in a red state to stay home on election day.
I don’t think it even makes a point, but it will salve their conscience, allowing them to firmly believe they stood against genocide while actually doing nothing more than this token gesture that at best has no impact on anything.
If 10% voted for some third party that would make the headlinds.
And be drowned in the rest of the election news and one of the two would win anyway.
Sure, 10% would be a pretty big deal, but 1% in the right places is enough for a different outcome. As this article shows
Now, I won’t assume that all those voters would have voted for Hillary had Stein not run, but it’s clear that third-party voting can have an impact on who wins, even if they have no chance to win themselves. But the GOP seems to think this could help them, and is willing to spend money on that chance.
I never understood the intense laser focus some people put on one policy. There’s so many to care about if you’re American. People are dying from homelessness, starvation, guns, and mental health every single day but the only thing you care about is overseas? That’s not even mentioning things like a woman’s right to dictate what happens to their own body.
The democrats are incapable of solving those problems…
I’ve at least heard plans to help with them instead of concepts of a plan
Those homeless could have homes if the billions of dollars stopped going to propping up genocidal regimes and the military industrial complex
Oh sick is Trump campaigning on that??
Oh sick is Kamala campaigning on that??
Answer to both: no. So maybe we should use other factors to decide!