Why are so many Pro-Palestine (I am pro-Palestine and anti-genocide) Americans refusing to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel?

Remember that in online spaces (and IRL in reality), there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts that will make claims to sway public opinions.
- Good point. Although, I would question whether Lemmy is such a place as we really don’t have the numbers to warrant the effort, imo.
  
  We get drug spam and stock spam, no reason to expect that political spam is any less likely.
  Lemmy has a huge amount of hardcore lefty's. If you can get them to not vote, and especially if you can get them to tell their friends not to vote, that is a big win.
  Astroturfing/sockpuppeting is dirty cheap to do, so no reason not to try.
  You do see some users here that will post continously on about a certain topic repeatedly, with no other opinions. They might be legit, but I have my suspicions.
  
  I disagree - it feels like Lemmy is seeing the same kind of shills that 4chan saw in the last several elections. These bad actors are trying to sway dems to vote third party or not vote at all "in protest" across many small and large online spaces.
  
  It is not currently such a place. I’ve yet to hear a Lemmy admin say otherwise.
  Edit to add: Russiagate conspiracy theorists want it to be true so they can simply dismiss voices that contradict their beliefs.
  
  takes no effort with modern technology
- yeah, mostly CIA and Israeli bots/paid posters. all of reddit is astroturfed. All social media is controlled by the feds as well. Look into the twitter leaks to see how they do it. Mintpressnews also has great articles about feds in censorship positions in all these social media companies ranging from Facebook to TikTok (100% CIA controlled btw).
  
  Is there any evidence of these CIA/Israeli bots / paid posters?
  If somebody makes a pro-Israel post, maybe they just genuinely support Israel (I wouldn't say that's my view currently - I think both Israel and Hamas are wrong because both have killed civilians).
  Edit: your downvotes aren't evidence.
- Yeah like all of these people out here telling me to vote for genociders. There's no way that real humans would think so little of Palestinian lives, right?
  Right?
  
  And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide? Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue. One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.
  Suppose you have two buttons. If you press one, it kills someone. If you press the second, it kills two people. If you don't press the first button, someone else is eagerly waiting who will press the second. Whoever has placed the buttons here, has enough power that neither the buttons nor the other person are within your personal ability to harm at the moment, and you have neither the time nor the popularity to amass enough people to change this before the other guy pushes the "kill two people" button. Your only options are to press one or press neither and allow the second be pressed. If your answer to this scenario is "I press neither button, because pressing the first kills someone, don't you care about people's lives!?", then you are not choosing morality, you are choosing selfishness, because you care more about the notion that your hands will be clean than about the net life saved if you press the button that kills fewer people. In fact, the blood is as much on your hands by inaction if you decide to reject your choice, as it would be had you killed the additional victim yourself.
  
  If both of them support genocide, but one also supports banning abortion, the ethical choice is to vote for the one that won’t ban abortion.
  If you’d rather wait until a candidate arrives that agrees with you on every issue, that’s fine, but you’ll probably never vote, and in the meantime, by not voting, supporting whichever candidate you like less.
  While there’s no honor in the presidency, there is honor in doing what you can to reduce harm, and if you can’t reduce harm to the Palestinians, at least you can reduce harm to American women and girls.
- There are, but not on Lemmy, because Lemmy is still much too small to bother with.
  
  Funny, good one
- Fucking brain broken if you think the bots are on the side opposite entrenched power

Majority of the people who are saying this are Arab-Americans. They know how bad Trump will be, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Biden back in 2020. Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they've become numb and just stopped caring. There have been repeated instsnces of Democrats actually silencing them from speaking up as well. They've adopted a scorched earth mentality and are deciding to send a giant "fuck you" to Harris and the entire Democratic party.
And the Democrats are also allowing Israel to do whatever they want. There's not much of a difference between the two on this topic.
- There is a difference between them on this topic.
  If Trump were in office now, every liberal here would be screaming for the genocide to end and trying to understand how anyone could let this happen.
  With Biden in office and his VP as candidate, they are trying to sell you on their candidate rather than working against the genocide.
  
  I've actually seen some Muslim American leader (not sure who, maybe the mayor of Dearborn?) saying something like this. At least with Republicans in charge democrats would need to oppose them instead of gleefully supporting the genocide. Not sure how much this logic checks out, but it's a thing I guess.
  
  That's the thing. I see a more likely scenario where the genocide is hindered under Trump. Not because Trump opposes it, but because it would suddenly become fashionable for liberals to oppose it.
  
  Hes gonna genocide better than harris, he guarantees it
  
  If the election were between Trump and somehow someone even worse who was calling to nuke the entire area and turn it into glass, then I would absolutely be pushing for Trump. Shockingly, if we are trapped in a horrifying, dystopian version of the trolley problem (which we are), I'm going to make the choice that causes the least damage.
  Using another analogy, if you have a badly broken arm, you can either set it and try to keep it immobilized, or you can let it stay how it is and all but guarantee that it gets fucked up even worse as it heals wrong. Voting third party is like saying "I don't like either of those options since they both involve my broken arm, so I choose to pray to the Moon Goddess". There is no option that immediately stops your arm from being broken. You can delude yourself and say the Moon Goddess will magically fix it, but in reality, you are choosing the option that does nothing and makes it worse. Choosing to set your broken arm doesn't make you "pro-broken arm", it's just the only practical choice given a terrible situation.
- Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they’ve become numb and just stopped caring.
  The craziest part of this to me is that this isn't the first time this has happened since it's started like... since the country has been founded. So the fact they're really still willing to engage politically at all is a pretty good testament to their character, I would say.
- See, doing it as a bloc with public visibility I can see. That actually has some chance of swaying at least the rhetoric. But I still think if they actually go through with not voting, they're voting against their own interests. The right is rabidly xenophobic and loves Israel, the only thing Trump will do to end the genocide is send even more military support.
- This was all laid out in 2020 and we said the fight wasn't over. We said even if biden won the dems will never be, 'good enough' because we all remember Obama. Objectively the best president of my lifetime and catches shit on a number of issues. The dems won't ever be good enough. The fight can't end until people learn that politics doesn't stop when a presidential election is over.
  Joe Biden should have been primaried. I said it for 4 fucking years. I will say the same about Kamala. She needs to actually win the fucking primary.
  That doesn't change the course, though. No amount of moral posturing is going to ignite a fire in out despondent electorate. You want a government that works for you. Participate.

They believe that taking a moral stand against the Democrats, who are supporting Israeli genocide, is worth it even if that means that Trump, who even more fervently supports Israeli genocide, becomes president.
- Describe "even more"? In what specific material ways would trump increase support for Israel?
  
  Trump has been deliberately framing himself as a protector of Israel who supports them doing whatever they want to.
- nice hasbara
- Even calling it "Israeli genocide" is transferring responsibility. "Supporting" is an understatement. The democrats ARE THE ONES DOING THE GENOCIDE. Biden can stop it with a single phone call. Israel is not an independent state; it is a subordinate of the US.
  Telling people to vote for your party, a nazi party, at the absolute peak of your depraved inhuman bloodthirst, because the other side might be worse, is the most cynical fucking thing I've ever heard.
  
  I genuinely do believe we're going to look back this time as inexcusable. Right now, Netanyahu's extreme right flank is now advocating for settlement of the parts of Gaza that have been ethnically cleansed. Specifically, they're saying that as long as the army stays there for a permanent long-term occupation, that can be the first step to proceeding with settlements.
  It's so much worse than even the Iraq war. I've seen by some estimates that the Iraq war displaced 2 million people, and the deaths, before they stopped counting, were between 100,000 and a quarter million.
  I think the deaths and displacements in Gaza probably are going to exceed those, and it's concentrated in a much smaller area, and it's horrifyingly closer to affecting the whole population.
  Simply put there's no excuse for this moral atrocity.
  And here's the but: I don't see how a strategic attitude of indifference to who runs the State department brings it closer to an end. And I don't see that that attitude is one of even pretending to try for an alternative. I do think supporting politicians especially in their Democratic primaries is a positive step. And I do think, as with the Iraq war, galvanizing a sea change and discrediting everyone who is associated with what happened in Gaza is necessary. I believe it is urgent to do something, and the actual channels of aid that can meaningfully do something right now exist entirely outside of party infrastructure of either party. But I also think, for how true that is, using that to lose sight a very real and very serious differences between the parties that also affect human welfare in numerous ways, would be to needlessly visit tragedy upon tragedy. I wouldn't want to lose American democracy into the bargain, and I don't think it's nuanced to be in indifferent to that.
  
  So when Trump wins and my rights to exist are stripped even further, I’ll be sure to thank you for it
  
  the most cynical fucking thing I've ever heard.
  Yes, it's cynical. It's based on the jaded belief that democracy is 90% dead, and Americans only get to make one of two meaningful choices.
  The opposite belief, which is that America is a democracy and you can vote for whoever you want, is hopeful and patriotic. It puts a lot of trust in the American system. It shows faith that politicians have our best interests at heart, and that it'll all work out if you just say what you want.
  Is that how you want to describe yourself? As a patriot who believes in America? It doesn't seem to align with your worldview, but it's what your actions are saying.
  
  I honestly appreciate the downvotes as a counter of angry people shamed into silence
  Good. You should be fucking ashamed.
  
  I'd rather vote for the party that's 85% nazi than 100%. And in a world where it's entirely unrealistic that anyone else can win between past-the-post voting and voter disenfranchisement, that's the best we're getting.

It's the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, "Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people".
But if you take a step back it's reasonable to ask, "WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don't spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus' forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose."
So given that realization it's also reasonable when told you must choose to say, "Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt."
That's the essential argument. There's the realpolitik decision to do "less harm", but you can also reject the fucked up premise.
- You can reject the fucked up premise, and find you still live in a reality that doesn't give a shit. In reality there are two outcomes to this election, and just a smidge of knowledge of game theory would show it doesn't make sense to help the worse side, both in the short and long term.
  I hate that we have 2 options, I hate that there is no 'no genocide' option. Me hating that shouldn't cause me to make worse decisions with clearly worse outcomes for everyone
  
  The critique of the trolly problem isn't that you don't still make the choice, it's that the outcome was predetermined before you even got there.
  Leftists who are making a point of abstaining are doing so to point out that voters have no control over the trolly to begin with - that the choice is artificial because the outcomes were pre-selected by someone/something else to ensure a particular outcome, and that participating in that choice only ends up legitimizing that process.
  
  The no genocide option is to protest against the current regime instead of vote shaming people who probably don't even live in a single swing state (where your candidate brought Liz Fucking Cheney btw).
- every post about this topic we have one person saying its the trolley problem, and starting a digression based on that, and one person saying its all first past the post voting, and starting a digression on that. The uniformity of the pattern of distraction setting is pretty suspicious.
- And then the trolley cross track drifts and murders six people while the third party voter feels smug and self-righteous about 'doing the right thing'.
  The time to prevent the construction of the trolley, to prevent people from being kidnapped from their homes and tied to trolley tracks, is every time other than the election, so your election options are the 'Not Murdering People With Trolleys' group.
  During the election, you minimize harm.
  And for everything else, you push for improvements.
  The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.
  You need to care before the trolley is barrelling down the tracks.
  
  The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.
  So why do establishment liberals ignore the demands of progressives until it's time to suddenly demand their votes?

Lol, living in a world where "anti-genocide" is actually a thing people say is messed up.
- I think is actually kind of nice.
  I mean of all species living on earth, human is the only species that would consider genocide a bad thing. Some random plant on prehistoric ages would just produce oxygen an cause a mass extinction without sweating it.
  And for most human history Humans would actually try to genocide others.
  At least now there is people who is anti-genocide. And it's probably a growing stance.
  
  Humpback whales have been seen interfering with killer whales that are attacking seals or dolphins. Maybe they don't see it as "genocide" as they don't have a concept of the idea, but there is at least some evidence of another species upset at, and willing to stop, the killing of another. I think by that logic, if they could understand the concept of genocide, they would consider it a bad thing.
- I was always confused by the polcie criminalizing antifa. So fascism good, anti fascism bad these days? Genocide is the same. If you are anti genocide you'll be brutalized.

The U.S. also has a huge defense industry that has made people ridiculously rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Those billionaires are heavily invested in the defense industry, so it's not in their interests that wars end at all.
This is that "military-industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. His concern was that the U.S. would become bogged down in an endless series of "forever wars" that do nothing but transfer wealth to the already-wealthy.
Keeping that military industrial complex well-fed is the reason why so many politicians have such a boner for war. Not only to keep their wealthy sponsors happy, but to keep tax money and jobs flowing to their states, which just happen to manufacture war materiel.
- Solid analysis

I’m going to tell you a secret.
The people who say this, the leftists that threaten to withhold their votes, tend to vote strategically anyways. But threatening to withhold votes is one way to apply pressure to politicians to do things like, say, stop promoting a fucking genocide. And then liberals lose their minds for some reason and make it totally irrelevant. And then we have a genocide that lasts for 75 years and starts world war 3.

The vote should be for someone who can get enough electoral college votes to win in the first place, and from there the one who is more likely to listen to public pressure, as well as the same for any congressional seats on the ballot. And probably not vote for the one who is threatening to send the military after those who disagree with them.
- Which as a non-American seems to be Harris, right?
  
  Yes, Harris is the only realistic option. Anyone voting for Trump is a Nazi in the most literal sense of the word.
  
  For a vote, yes. I can't even imagine what Trump would do with the situation given another chance. Some may say the same thing as the US has always done, which is one of the problems that will need to be addressed regardless of who wins, but Trump also likes dictators, so support would probably be bumped up even more for Netanyahu.
- Hardly okay with it. Some Americans don't even know how things work to begin with, so ignorance is worse than knowing things are broken but what we have at the moment. Just because I acknowledge that's the current election system doesn't mean I don't think we could do a lot better. That is its own topic with a lot of hills to climb, but some states have started.
  And it's a representative democracy with various flaws, one being not the proper number of constituents per representative, and far too much influence from other places that override the public's opinions. Another separate debate.

She's campaigning on building the wall. she's endorsed by dick cheney and 200+ reagan and Bush admin staffers. we have sent more aid to Israel in the past year than we ever have since Israel was invented. she has stated that her support of Israel is iron-clad. the current admin has broken records for the amount of oil and gas extracted extracted in the past 4 years. she has refused to voice support for the trans people who are supposedly going to be protected by her admin. she has kicked Palestinian people out of her campaign events, while instead parading around Richie Torres, a person who famously has stated multiple times that Palestinians deserve their eradication. her policy page has removed all mentions of medicare for all and paths to citizenship. she has promised to make america's military the most lethal fighting force in the world.
she has decided that the "moderate conservative" who will never vote for her is more important than all the progressives and leftists who probably would've. just like Hillary Clinton and Dale Earnhardt, she's going to crash into a wall because she can't turn left.
- The fact Dick Cheney, a war criminal along with Bush Jr. and her 'graciously' accepting of it, is not sending massive warning horns and bells to the average Dem, OE to her own campaign should be enough to see they have lost their own plot. They are out of touch and just screaming, orange man bad, does not fix their own problems. Many people are not enough of a blind ideologues to not see that.
  They are pushing for Trump's border wall. Like come on.
- Democracy : Very bad choice versus very very bad choice
  Democracy : a vote for the system versus a vote for the system
  Democracy : a thin facade hiding a genicidal monstrous death machine that claims to speak for us all
  Hint : is it really democracy after Edward Bernays ?
  Time to overwrite the government and take out the trash
  made it into a song draft (et en québécois)
- And if you're in this position where you see this all as fact, then what is the alternative?
  IMO there is none.
  Trying to rebuild the system at the time of an election is the wrong time. You have two options - because that is the reality you live in (right now).
  Work on building something better AFTER the election, change the system, fix it for the future. But for NOW, you get a choice. Not voting (in this system) is a vote for ambivalence, and you dont seem like the person that doesn't care.
  But importantly, work to change the system later. You have valid concerns and the system you are in is broken, but you can make a change.
  Edit: to not be misconstrued, I agree with the issues at hand that you're highlighting. I'm just saying that the alternative is worse and that is a likelihood in this reality no?
  
  Always time later right? Later never comes though does it.
  And all of this concern was here before the election, its only getting attention now because during election season is the only time it has an effect.
  People just blow off protestors during the non election season. Why? Because they don't have to bargain with them, they have no power then.
  
  After election protests were shot at, broken up and arrested. Election is the only way to change how stuff is today.

I voted for Harris, but I feel like it's pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.
One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I'm not saying "is" here. I'm saying "should be".
We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there's value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.
And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu's whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.
For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It's not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!
Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that's not something we can do everywhere. We can't repeatedly choose the "least miserable option" and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It's just not possible.
Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, "on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is."
Some people's hill is their ballot.
- Welcome to the brotherhood of being a human being, though I suspect you've been here for some time. we respect your choice to vote for harris.

- Wow, it's almost as if someone being bad can be for multiple reasons!
  
  Yeah, for instance: funding a genocide, xenophobic immigration policy, building the wall, dropping the ball on covid right before delta/omicron, a lack of healthcare reform, the inability to protect abortion rights, being a cop, denigrating anti-genocide protestors, racially profiling Muslims at your events
- https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
  Looks like the campaign has a whole bunch of things besides "orange man bad". All there on the official page easy to find.
  It seems like someone saying the entire campaign is "orange man bad" hasn't bothered to listen to anything being said and is just focusing on the most salient point in a bad faith effort to discredit them.
  
  https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq#kamala-harris
- This is really clever if you're okay with convincing yourself that you know exactly and completely what other people believe.. Otherwise it's a reductionist hot take filled with logical fallacy.

4 years ago, Democrats said the border wall was stupid and bad. They said that Republicans were racist for claiming all Mexicans were drug dealers and criminals. Today, Harris is saying she's gonna build the border wall, be tough on migrants, and has basically adopted Trump's policies on immigration.
There is no indication that the Democrats will not be just as bad as the Republicans on Israel in 4 years.
To address your second point "not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump"; why isn't the opposite true? "Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris", follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
This election should be a slam dunk victory for Harris. The data shows that adopting leftist progressive policies is popular. Biden dropping out resulted in $4 million in small donor fundraising. Picking Walz resulted in another $2 million. People got really excited when it looked like the Democratic party was making leftist progressive movement.
Since then, the Dems have been aggressively moving towards the center. More lethal military, inciting panic about the border, ignoring Palestine. This has resulted in an extremely tight race as people are no longer excited to vote for Harris.
I want Harris to win. Moving leftward politically will attract more voters. Taking a firm stance on stopping the Israeli government's genocide is a leftist progressive policy. The bag is right there, she just needs to grab it.
- Democrats making obviously winning plays? You cannot be serious.
  They are intentionally bad at politics. Their greatest skills are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and shitting and falling back in it. Wanna see how for yourself? Dig into the DNC. They're not a political entity, they're a corp. And they work for the interests of corps. If what they do occasionally isnt absolute shit its almost entirely incidental.
- Thanks for the elaborated comment! Don't mind the negativity around the replies, some ppl are so simple they will hate until you literally say 'Harris good, Trump bad'.
  
  I've recently seen a nice description of that - "peasant mindset".
  People who are not ready and willing to peacefully discuss reality with literally anyone, and most of all marginal and weird viewpoints, like sovcits and antivaxxers, because those are more interesting, - have that "peasant mindset".
  (I've found something like that in my head too this morning, so sharing the thought.)
  Aggression is a sign of fear, and fear is something we feel when we are not ready to change our mind if we get some good arguments, or when we get bad, insufficient arguments, but are pressed to change our mind anyway.
  Why can we not be ready for that, feel powerless before that possibility of deciding to think differently 5 minutes from now?
  Because there's something that we follow like a peasant follows their master. It's the assumed identity, the family, the group, the party, the state, the nation. Such a decision, and a decision to discuss reality preceding that, is an act of defiance toward those. It's a conflict, and we as humans sometimes try to avoid conflicts. It's like discussing orders. Only there's not a single soul above us who is entitled to order us how we vote or how we think.
  Every decision worth making is destructive, everything new comes in the place of something old and something that could be, there's nothing to fear.
  Changing one's mind by a conscious decision after careful consideration is a sign of having personal dignity. Not changing one's mind in the same situation is too a sign of having personal dignity.
  Keeping your head down and trying to eat anyone not in line is not.
  (too long again)
- The opposite of „not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump“ isn’t true because of the electoral college, which heavily skews towards rural states with not many voters, which are often conservative.
  You need roughly 4 Californian votes to match 1 Wyoming vote. That’s why Republicans seldom win the popular vote and still manage to win elections.
  So if left leaning people don’t vote (or vote third party), the negative effect for Harris is amplified in comparison to conservatives.
  
  Well, in that case, the Democrats should adopt policies that attract more left leaning voters. Saying stuff like, "I will prosecute migrants" doesn't make any sense because if that is an important topic to a voter, why wouldn't they just vote Trump who has promised that and more?
  If the problem is, "not enough left leaning votes", the solution seems like, "attract more left leaning votes". People in this country love progressive leftist policies like universal healthcare or not funding genocides, no matter their party affiliation. People have not responded well to neo-liberal/conservative policies like means testing school lunches or increasingly stringent border laws.
  And yet, the Democratic party continually adopts neo-liberal/conservative policies. It feels like voting Democrat is just, "voting Republican but slower". The Democratic party has accepted the Republican framing about an imaginary migrant crisis, and that was with a much more firm stance against racism only 4 years ago. Yeah, they would possibly be better on Israel's genocide than Republicans, but all the actions protesting the genocide have been met with vitriol from the current administration. It seems far more likely that the Democrats would just do the same thing as Republicans, just less loudly.
  The Democratic party cannot expect to win simply because, "orange man bad". They have not shown they will not continue to adopt Republican ideas and policies. If they want people to vote for them, they should do things to attract those voters. They should stop doing things that pushes away voters.
  
  The electoral college ensures the vote in California has nothing to do with the one in Wyoming.
  You still haven't provided any proof that the net result of third party or not voting favors republicans though. It could just as easily still be neutral, or favor democrats.
- To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
  You're missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.
  Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn't mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.
  
  You simply cannot count votes you never had.
  
  There are far more people that don't vote than there are conservative democrats. In fact, non-voters are the biggest chunk of population in this country. Instead of courting the center conservative voters, wouldn't it make more sense to target non-voters with policies that have been proven to be widely popular?
  People like progressive left-leaning policies. Streamlining the citizenship process for immigrants is popular. Fighting price gouging is popular. Not supporting genocide is popular. It seems like getting the couch potatoes excited to vote would have more beneficial results than trying to attract conservative democrats with unpopular neo-liberal conservative policies.
- Classic progressive defeatist mantra: you’re not left enough so fuck you. Bring on the fascist.
  
  The anti-genocide people have drawn a line in the sand and decided to stick to that principle. I think it is pretty reasonable to have lines you do not cross with genocide being a pretty understandable one. These people have decided, "if you use our tax dollars for genocide, we will not vote for you".
  You are asking them to, "ignore the genocide stuff and focus on the good stuff", but unlike Biden, these people have red lines they will not cross.
  If you don't want fascists to come into power, then the Democrats should stop doing fascism-lite. I think it is reasonable for people not to support fascism-lite. They should indeed move further left away from the fascism they are barreling towards.

Single issue voters just seem to be the excuse of Democrat party for if they lose.
Just like election fraud is of the Republican party.
- Except the genocide is actually happening with their support

doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
And what if they seem equally likely to escalate the situation?
Trump says he'll let Israel finish the job. Kamala says she disapproves of what's happening in Gaza, but will always support Israel and will always provide them with weapons.
Same fuckin' thing.
- 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 no third option.
  There is a third option.
  
  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.

- Under federal laws, the US Department of State has a policy prohibiting weapons transfers when it’s likely they will be used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.
  In February 2024, Veterans for Peace sent an open letter to the State Department and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, invoking these laws and policies, urging the termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.
- Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?
  https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
- This is already missing the point that if Harris is not elected, Palestine will be gone. Hell, everyone everywhere in the world will suffer under Trump
- Ding! Ding! Here is the correct answer.
  I'm beginning to think that liberals and lefties have no clue how government works and they want a strongman/dictator as much as the magahat idiots. They just want one that aligns with their beliefs instead.
  The POTUS is NOT all powerful and can make what ever decisions they want. Controlling the house and senate is far more important than whoever is living in the White House. The House and Senate writes the laws and checks to pay for everything. AND they ratify the treaties making them formally binding.
  If you want to stop the genocide, elect the people in the house and senate that will effect the actions needed to make it happen.
  
  Waiting several election cycles to end a genocide is insane and there is no world in which that is the moral, ethical, or logical path forward. Hope this helps!

I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It's easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that's harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris' Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.
I'm still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.
The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/
Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel's genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.
Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don't see that from the Democratic administration.
Despite Trump's horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It's not logical, but it's hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the 'lesser evil' doesn't work when the 'lesser evil' is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He's using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.
Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.

Split Ticket (July 2024)

New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters (Full YouGov Report) (May 2024)

Data For Progress Poll (May 2024)

American Attitudes: Shifting Realities After the Unfolding Genocide in Gaza (Nov 2024)

https://instituteforglobalaffairs.org/2024/09/vox-populi-battlegrounds/#full-report (Nov 2024)
- Beautiful write-up, thank you!

The US needs to fix their voting system before they can start voting third party. It's probably even more difficult with Trump
- You're more likely to get a socialist revolution than democrats and Republicans getting rid of FPTP at a significant enough level to matter.
  
  That'd be cool
- The US needs to vote third party in order to fix the voting system.
  
  It's too rigged
  
  Maybe, but third party presidential, when there is no legislators is never going to happen, never going to be elected, and never get any bills passed. Aiming for the white house as the first stop is just silly.

Three points:
Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn't stop reminding us of in everything but, "strangely", not this subject) and isn't even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump's word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a "otherwise it's Trump" strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn't much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it's very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
Some people simply put their moral principles above "yeah but" excuses and won't vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.
In summary:
Trump's Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris' is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they're supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the "wrong" ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that's the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it's the least bad choice.
Some people can't just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn't even a "choose a good thing" but actually a "choose a lesser evil", and "Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies" is pretty strong as moral principles go.
- i agree mostly with you, even thought i'm a foreigner. i'd just like to point out that even though there are doubts about trump continuing america's support of a genocide (and i believe he won't have that much of a problem since both major parties in america support it), there's everything else about him.
  and also, everything else about the dems too. let's just say that major lawfare campaigns against progressive governments here in latin america have been conducted under dem rule in the u.s.. brazil and uruguay had their coups d'état orchestrated by the johnson administration. honduras, paraguay and brazil suffered lawfare coups under the obama administration.
- It's sad that no democrats are pulling to the left on the major foreign policy issues. Illian Omar said the best thing for Ukrainian children is to ensure that Ukrainian nazis can control regions they hate. Bernie has recently said that "Israel has the right to defend itself" even if he has also said a ceasefire is important. The only voice who would trade the demonic warmongering US empire for an extra hotel or two is Trump.
  
  There is a real possibility that the person who would be best for Palestine would be Trump simply because he doesn't follow through on what he says and is too incompetent when he does.
  It's a very sad state of affairs that the US Presidential Candidate that might be the least Nazi-supporting one is Trump, not because of his ideology not being Fascist but because he's incompetent, inconsistent and has a tendency for non-interventionism.
- If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a "otherwise it's Trump" strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power.
  If the Republicans get absolutely walloped in the election for running a wannabe dictator, it will show them that the extremism isn't going to work and they have to run reasonable candidates to have a chance at winning. Then next election when they present someone who isn't a megalomaniacal idiot who wants to be a "Dictator Day 1" it will require the Democrats to do better and put more effort than "not a dictator."
  Letting the Republicans be this close will cause the Democrats to move further right because the leftists aren't going to vote for them anyway, and they sure as fuck won't vote for Republicans, so moving to the right to steal 1000 votes from Republicans is better than moving left and gaining 1500 votes from people who otherwise wouldn't vote.
  
  Whilst the first paragraph does make some sense, it presumes that in such a situation the Republicans would not conclude it's the style of the candidate rather than his ideas that caused the rout. That might be a little optimist considering that the traditional Republicans' were just as far right economically before and almost as right in Moral issues, but they had a different style of candidate (remember Reagan?).
  It might also be a little optimist to expect an absolute walloping of anybody, Republican or Democrat.
  That said, it's a valid scenario, though it relies on very low probability events.
  The second paragraph is inconsistent with every single thing the Democrats have done in their pre-electoral propaganda, from the whole "vote us or get Trump" (something which wouldn't scare the Right) to the raft of pre-election promises on Left-wing subjects like student debt forgiveness or tightening regulations on giants such as Telecoms a little bit. If they really thought they could win with only votes stolen from the Right, they would be making promises which appeal to the Right, not the Left.
  Besides, the whole idea that Rightwing voters would go for the less-Rightwing party rather than the more-Rightwing party is hilarious: why go for the copy if you can get the real deal?
  From what I've seen in other countries were Center-Left Parties totally dropped their appeal to the Left and overtly went to appeal to the Right, they got pummeled because the Maths don't add up and, as I said above, Rightwing votes will choose the "genuine article" over the "wannabes".
  It's not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.

- i wonder how much of a single issue a genocide is
  
  Upvoted for proving the point.
- The single issue? Genocide.
- Does your logic apply to single issue (anti Trump) voters?
  dumb as fuck
  
  Yep

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election
If you don't live in one of the 7 states that matter in an election then you can vote your morality, safe in the knowledge that the EC will ignore your input, anyway
Inb4 some dipshit mentions down ballots when we're talking about the fucking presidential election

Both candidates will support Israel, so for pro palestine voters it's a "Would you like to vote for the Shitty Party, or Less Shitty Party" situation, where not voting from these parties is shunned upon because it will help Shitty Party win.
- It's not just shunned, it's literally throwing your vote away. Voting laws in the US, including the electoral college, mean that it is literally impossible for a third party to win the presidential election. We need ranked choice or other alternative voting methods, and the EC needs to go away.
  
  your vote is worthless but you shouldn't throw it away

Because they don't understand that voting is just one part of the democratic process.

Because it's a far right party. Trump happens to be more far right, but that doesn't change that fact. I'm not voting for far right, neoliberal, genocidal freaks.
At how many genocides do you draw the line? If the democrats committed a second one along with the Palestinian genocide they are committing right now? You'd again say trump would be worse, vote for Harris. If they committed three? Four? No matter what they do, Trump would do worse, so again you'd tell us to vote for Harris.
I draw the line at a genocide and at everything this neoliberal party stands for. I am not giving that party my approval because it is going in the exact opposite direction of what I stand for. At some point, the lesser evil is too evil.
- I completely understand this. But, assisting in the lesser evil outcome is always worth the voting effort. If you don't, then even worse evil will be on the ballot next time, and your voice can be counted on being ignored once again.

Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who's been actively supporting a genocide?
- What message would we be sending if our replacement for them is a guy that wants Isreal to "finish the job" with it? Killing fewer people matters more than accountability
  
  There is not a big difference between one who say finish the job and one who doesn't say it but give every resources for Israel to finish the job
  
  The message would be that voting Americans are not okay with genocide. Harris is actually culpable, while the idea that Trump would be significantly worse for the Palestinians and Lebanese is just hypothetical. Trump is actually the lesser of two evils this time. The allegations against him don't amount to genocide by a long shot.
- Do you think electing Trump will be read as "wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights" by the world?
  
  Electing Trump means Harris loses, which means that enough voting Americans believe that genocide is unacceptable to have held her as accountable as our system allows. It will be read as better than the alternative. Electing Harris means that we've been sold on genocide by a campaign that has embraced the Cheneys of all people.
  
  A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.
  Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.

Never again means never again, I will not be party to it.
- That's too simplistic. The two parties will either make it worse or not make it better. Not voting (assuming you are in a state without winner-takes-all or are in a swing/purple state) is letting other people decide for you. Walking away from the trolley problem doesn't untie people from the tracks.
  
  Reddit logic isn't going to convince me to support a genocide candidate, sorry. My vote was never yours. There's no tent big enough that Dick Cheney being invited in won't result in me wanting to burn the whole tent down.

In my situation, I'm in a solid blue state so I'm voting for a third party to push the country to the left.
- If only USA had ranked choice voting, then everyone could do that.
  
  Or literally any voting system with more than two seconds thought put into it
- This kinda makes sense, I guess that means not a swing state (I’m not American).
  Do you have to be in a heavy blue state to do this without fear that if enough people do this it will swing red?
  
  Yes, exactly. If you live in a solid blue or red state, your vote is a drop in the bucket, so it won't matter if you vote third party. But in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.... in 2016, the number of votes won by Jill Stein was slightly greater than the difference between Trump/Clinton. Ouch! Was it worth it? Did it move the country left?
  
  Yeah it's a strategy that would work in any heavy red or blue state, because there's an absolute zero percent chance the dems lose my state.
- So playing the first round of Russian Roulette for no real benefit.
  Congrats I guess.
- Do you understand how voting works?
  
  Do you not understand how the Electoral College works?
  
  No, go ahead and explain it to me!

They already lived through 4 years of Trump and have decided it is worth doing it again instead of letting the party most currently responsible for said genocide to win.
Point being that Harris has outright refused to meet any sort of demands on Israel. There was no reduction in arms nor any restrictions placed on Israel, and Harris fully intends to continue that policy.
If she loses, it means that she failed to meet her constituents demands, which means they'd have to actually meet them in the next election to win.
Also because I have a hard time seeing how anyone who lost entire family trees would listen to "uM AkShuLly TrUmP woUld bE 9999x WorSe, wE jUst NeEd tO ProTest aFTER tHe ELeCTion" as if we didn't just full send billions of dollars in munitions and weapons to Israel.
- If she loses there won't be a next election
  
  I know this is the argument people think is the most compelling. But in reality, this is not hitting with the electorate. Calling him weird was much more effective. Even post Jan 6th!
  Trump bad, Trump fascist, for some reason that's preaching to the choir; the urgency is already felt with the people who are gonna feel it. The campaign could realize this, and could pivot and focus entirely on abortion and economy, because they won't touch the war. But Kamala is currently stumping with Republicans on a "Trump Bad" ticket. Fuck the Cheneys.
  Basically Trump = fascist, even if true, is ineffective, and is losing the election as Trump picks up immigration votes from minorities and protest votes from Muslims.
  
  After what we've allowed and contributed to in Gaza, maybe we don't deserve another election.
  
  They still have elections in Russia /s
- “uM AkShuLly TrUmP woUld bE 9999x WorSe, wE jUst NeEd tO ProTest aFTER tHe ELeCTion”
  Trump promises to arrest and deport you for your protest in support of Hamas/Iran. Only reason to be anti genocide is you being an Iranian agent.
  
  Only reason to be anti genocide is you being an Iranian agent.
  What a thing to say. Really, just step back and look at the words you wrote.

To push her to change her stance... you only own your vote. That's the only leverage. She is the reason they aren't voting for her.
- That logic should apply to Trump as well. 🤷‍♂️
  
  Correct! That's a great reason not to vote for either of them.
  
  I mean it does doesn't it? Trump supports can also threaten not to vote for him if he continues bad policies.
  But we are talking about Harris supporters here. If Americans don't even have a real vote with real value then what would stop Harris or Trump policies that will eventually render everyone in Gaza dead? If you can't even speak to politicians with your own vote and if they don't even value your vote, then how are we going to achieve anything?
  Harris is the one losing votes for her shitty policy. It's not the fault of the voter. It's the fault of the candidate.

Your vote is your consent.
Imagine for a minute that your perfect political candidate was running. The only catch is that if they win they are promising to personally execute your family in front of you. The other guy is gonna kill your family too so everyone tells you to stop being such a single issue voter and vote for the lesser evil.
Do you still vote for them? Or do you refuse to participate in the execution of your family?
- Does refusing to vote stop your family from being executed?
  
  When you cease being part of the execution squad itself it becomes much easier to fight them.
  
  Probably not. But it doesn’t include your consent at the very least.
  Maybe you’re a perfectly objective person who can still vote for your families execution. But I think most people would struggle with it, if they’re being truly honest with themselves.
- Your vote is not your consent; that's some nonsense made up to get people to not vote.
  In your metaphor, you vote for one your family dies, you vote for another your family and another family dies. You refuse to participate in the system and both families die.
  You didn't consent to that, but you allowed it to happen via your vote of INDIFFERENCE which is what not voting means. It means you don't care which way things go, because that's all it can mean to not make a choice.
  
  Easy to say when it’s not your family getting slaughtered.
  But we all know you’re a paragon of rationality who would enthusiastically vote for an administration who has promised to kill your family because your love of lesser evilism outweighs anything else.
  
  Of course we are talking about politics, not their metaphor. Metaphors break down pretty quickly in politics, as the actual material logic requires more than a five minute toy example.
  In our current scenario, the Dems have a genocide candidate. If you vote for that and tell other people to vote for that, you are telling yourself and those around you that genocide is tolerable. Not just tolerable, even - recommendable in certain circumstances, pleading that it is reluctant. You are, in fact, helping to normalize genocide, and with it, dehumanize Palestinians. And if that genocidal candidate wins with your support, what will be the accepted consciousness? What will you and others internalize? It sure as shut will not be, "wow we should not have supported a fucking genocide what the fuck is wrong with us?" It will be, "hey cool we will support you no matter what, 98% Hitler". The party will see this and nod their heads, "let's start doing criminal charges for supporting Palestine" (they are already starting in this direction, e.g. Samidoun) and, "we never have to do anything our voters want".
  Basically, y'all have no concept of leverage but you do have a concept of personal morality and are absolutely trashing it. You will, of course, never be forgjven by those who consider Palestinians to be human. One must hope that you overcome this implicit racism.
- Yeah! If you don't vote, nobody becomes president!
  The system marches on with or without your input.
  
  Sounds like a good reason to work on opposing the system and thinking of your vote as a minor expression of your personal morality. And I would hope that personal morality draws the line at supporting genocide.
  Does it?
- I don’t see a lesser evil here, both are going to kill my family. The lesser evil would be if one party is only going to kill half my family and yes I would vote for that party over the one that is going to kill ALL my family, after all it’s a two party system and one of them is going to win.

it's like people forget that trump was already president before. the Israel/Palestine conflict is not new. i'm pretty sure every US president since Israel was founded has supported Israel in every form the conflict has taken. there's more gas on the fire now, but it's not like trump wasn't stoking the flames when he was president last time, and it's weird to think he wouldn't actually contine the bipartisan US policy of providing material aid to Israel, regardless of what fucked up shit they do.
both candidates will support genocide, so at that point you can either not vote, and just let the chips fall where they may, vote for a third party candidate who won't support genocide (because they won't get elected), or choose between the two genocidal options based on other factors, and try and minimize the damage in other arenas.
- "We should vote for Strasser instead of Hitler because they'll both kill the Jews anyway, but Stresser would be better for us"
  Man, Americans really are way too comfortable supporting a genocide as long as they don't have to be reminded too often.
- JFK suggested for a moment that Zionist lobbyists should register as foreign agents, and called Israeli leadership SOBs. Very soon after he was shot, and LBJ shelved the idea.
  
  He was also very concerned about how completely unhinged the CIA was and how it operated with total impunity. No such concerns from any president since, somehow.

Electoral College with First Past The Post electors. Hundreds of millions of american votes are dumpstered for the presidential election. So a significant portion of protest voters in deep red OR deep blue states aren't impacting the outcome. Only swing states decide the outcome and even then it is only a few districts within those states. And so the electoral outcome for the presidency gets reduced to the most salient wedge issues in those communities.
It just so happens some things are not so localized an issue. So the idea (or one of them) is to demonstrate whether there is a meaningful voting bloc to be had here that deserves to be listened to, or can continue to be ignored.

US Elections are decided when they do redistricting and manipulate the voting districts to ensure the results they want and isn't a real democracy. The US is run by oligarchs who run their enterprise corporations and the power is concentrated there, not in the government.
- Though true, doesn't answer the asked question in any way. You still get to choose between shitty and fucking horrific AND shitty. So why abstain?

- Exactly! Only single issue "Orange man bad" voters are morally good!
  Trump's hypothetical genocide is way worse than Harris' real life genocide!
  Moral superiority belongs to supporters of Genocide Harris who promised to build the Mexican border wall!

- I've never met any IRL. Same as how I've never met any Burnie to Trump voters IRL.
  
  I know several people in real life who liked Bernie but voted for Trump. Here in a deep red state.
- Absolutely. This "you're just a poser lefty if you actually vote for Kamala" stuff is such a psyop. I really really hope people aren't buying it.
  Idealists we all may be, we obviously need to deal with the most immediate danger first, and I hope it's plenty clear that handing Angry Orange Baby more votes isn't helping anyone!

I think something that contributes to people talking past each other here is a difference in belief in how necessary/desirable revolution/overthrow of the U.S government is. Like many of the people who I've talked to online, who advocate not voting and are also highly engaged, believe in revolution as the necessary alternative. Which does make sense. It's hard to believe that the system is fundamentally genocidal and not worth working within (by voting for the lesser evil) without also believing that the solution is to overthrow that system.
And in that case, we're discussing the wrong thing. Like the question isn't whether you should vote or not . it's whether the system is worth preserving (and of course what do you do to change it. How much violence in a revolution is necessary/acceptable). Like if you believe it is worth preserving, then clearly you should vote. And if you believe it isn't, there's stronger case for not voting and instead working on a revolution.
Does anyone here believe that revolution isn't necessary and also that voting for the lesser isn't necessary?
The opposite is more plausible to me: believing in the necessity of revolution while also voting
Personally I believe that revolution or its attempt is unlikely to effective and voting+activism is more effective, and also requires agreement from fewer people in order to progress on its goals. Tragically, this likely means that thousands more people will be murdered, but I don't know what can actually be effective at stopping that.
- They can't be arsed to choose pragmatically between two bad candidates when voting and we're to believe they can do a revolution that involves several harder choices? Do these people think revolutions are easy walks in the park where you never have to make hard choices like, for example, killing your neighbors for being in the way of the revolution or how to handle POWs, etc.
  Some people assume that voting and political activism are mutually exclusive, these people are stupid and won't win a revolution. These two things are not mutually exclusive, voting doesn't stop you from protesting and being politically engaged and vice versa.
  
  Voting while planning a revolution is like sealing up a broken window with plastic until you can replace it. Basic maintenance so the whole thing doesn't get worse before the replacement is ready.

I think it's because of stuff like this:

I'm not a U.S.A-ian. From my view(might be too critical), I don't think the foreign policy would be greatly affected by the President or party, unless there's some massive movement and notion of losing resources like during the invasion of Vietnam.
- I think you're generally right that foreign policy won't be very affected (not sure what the image has to do with it), but domestic policy certainly will be. It's very disheartening to see all of these self-proclaimed leftists basically discarding LGBTQ people, whose rights are extremely up for debate in this election, to make a performative stance against a policy that both sides support equally.

Simple. You punish zionists and democrats for backing genocide. If they keep losing on their positions then they'll learn to work for your vote. That's why always voting red or blue no matter what is bad. It just makes your vote worthless because you'll vote for them no matter what.
- Political parties don't learn, they respond to power.

to put pressure on the US government with regards to the situation in the Middle East
- the only pressure thats gonna put on the situation is negative because if harris loses, the other is gonna double down on them. and since harris is not in a position to do anything due to losing the election, your efforts have just ensured further and faster destruction
  
  The only time pressure can be applied is before they have your vote. Hope this helps!
- When will the pressure be applied? It sure as shit won't be the current election, so you're betting on it still being a thing in 4 years that they can change their mind on?
  Calling your representatives changes more opinions than "not voting" or "voting for someone else" in a two party system.
- This is putting a "kick me" sign on your own back lmao.

What has the current administration actually stopped Israel from doing? Every line in the sand has been crossed and there have been no consequences, trump won't be worse for Palestine than Kamala

Because I live in one of the many many states were my vote doesn't matter at all.
What's the point of casting a worthless vote in favor of genocide?
People here act like we live in some kind of actual democracy lol.

- Conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists everywhere.
  AIPAC is doing what is actually effective: lobbying (AKA bribing) politicians.
  
  So are the Saudis.
  But to deny that the known efforts of the Russians to fuck with the GOP and at least one known instance of them fucking with BLM is foolish. Go to the Canada subreddit on any news related to India and its full of atrocious asfroturf.
  Russia and Trump proved it effective, now everyone is doing it.
- Wait til you get a load of the CIA
  
  Whattaboutism.
- Russia doesn't do SHIT in the US. The only thing that was proven was that they spent like 200k on buff Bernie facebook memes. Russiagate was debunked by the CEO of Crowdstrike who testified that they saw no evidence of Russia hacking Hillary's email servers.
  China and Iran do less than nothing, they are completely ineffective at propaganda. I live in Taiwan, you would think with a shared language (mandarin), the "CCP" (CPC is what they're actually called) would be effective at brainwashing Taiwanese right into believing their narratives right? FUCK no.

There are many contributing factors. Part of it is russian and american oligarchs spending heaps of cash to amplify any and every message that could help trump win.

people dont seem to see the difference between ending up with a party for which a good chunk of their supporters think that what Israel is doing is a genocide vs ending up with a party for which all of their supporters think not only that what Israel is doing is justified but should also do the same to all middle eastern countries (together with direct USA involvement).
I think there are two major subgroups within this group.
First one is immigrants whose families are from the middle east/Palestine who are rightfully very angry at all the world for doing jack shit about Israel committing genocide. What they have to realize is there are unfortunately only two options going ahead: 1- as it is now, maybe somewhat better in future, or 2- much worse. There is no third option that is going to come out of these elections but one where there is potential for change (potential coming from the supporters mentioned above) vs %100 chance of things going for the worse. Note that I am not talking at all about the candidates themselves at all, just the demographic that generally votes for them.
The second group is probably China or Russia fans who just want to see America suffer by getting Trump elected. These are very short sighted people with whom you cannot really have a coherent conversation with.

You got many answers, but part of it is because of shit like this.
- good god, one would think this is something trump would do. at this point the choice is between an orange turd and an aipac approved vomit. and still there people questioning why we don’t want to eat either.

Obama dropped an average of 60 bombs every day on the middle east and north africa during his presidency.
The US isn't a democracy, and it's elections are nothing but theatre. I recommend asking about this on lemmygrad or hexbear also.
- it's the famous Dessalines of github US atrocities fame :D :D

Some people think the trolley problem is just a funny template.
- Some people think it's the height of political thought and a sufficient salve for supporting genocide.
  
  Was that why people couldn't vote for Hillary?
  Or Kerry?
  Or Gore?
  It's always something with people's excuses for letting things get worse and feeling smug about it. This is worse than usual - but the system hasn't changed, and your inaction still makes things worse. Y'think open American fascism is gonna make anything better?

- Being against nazis doing a genocide makes you a bootlicker according to the pro nazi doing genocide instance

I wonder the same thing, specially since Trump is also pro-Israel and voting for either one wont save Palestine

European here, stuck in the middle of all this.
Please vote Harris.
The winner of this ellection will be the president of all americans, not just of its supporters.
an election is just a nudge in one direction. real change takes many electoral cycles or a revolution.
If you want to do a revolution please do that on your own time or think long term electoral strategy.
Dont be stupid, be usefull. Even if it hurts.
- The democrats have won most of the elections in the past 30 years and they are still going more and more right. I don't think you're correct in this analysis. Hilary Clinton and Al Gore won the elections and didn't become president, even discounting that the democrats have been in power for the majority of this century and they have only become more and more right wing.

Lots of people foolishly think political parties can learn lessons.

- This is what I think as well. I understand there are people out there with that opinion, but I think their message is getting signal boosted by people trying to sway the election.

Because they’re willing to chop off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Only in doing so they’re going to screw over the rest of us and apparently they don’t care.
Harris is the only sane choice.
- You want us to vote for the person running to the right of the guy who kept all of trump's policies because trump might get into office?
  And that should be a compelling enough reason to hold our noses for genocide?
- Shaming peoppe so they vote for your guy. Try harder.
- You are actually insane.

2 reasons jump to mind.
When I listen to people who personally identify with the people of Gaza, it goes way beyond logic. They have a completely emotional reaction. Their choices are almost completely driven by the question of, "Who is doing what, right now?" Questions of, "Who will do what 6 months from now?" take a distant back seat.
Every time the topic comes up, Democrats dogpile on them and call them morons. People will often respond with something like, "Yeah but that's OK because they ARE morons." I won't argue if that's true or not but it's pretty obvious that line of reasoning won't win a lot of converts.
- I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't understand either point you are trying to make here.
  
  Not rude at all. The original question is why certain people behave in a certain way.
  The first point addresses the direct reason why some voters would refuse to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel. When people believe they are being harmed they tend to focus all their attention on the immediate harm. It's not a logical choice but people don't act logically in these circumstances.
  As an example of this, I'd offer our response to 9/11. The entire nation came together to pass the PATRIOT act and start a war in Afghanistan. There's no logic in passing a bill that was so long that no one in congress could have read it before voting on it. It's hard to argue for the logic of invading Afghanistan. There wasn't really an objective (besides "get OBL", who we later ended up assassinating in an other country) and in retrospect it's certainly clear that it caused far more harm than good. But we were in an emotional state. The people watching their relatives getting bombed in Gaza are in a similarly emotional state.
  The second point addresses why Democrats attempts to convince them are failing so spectacularly. Getting someone to vote for your preferred candidate is an exercise in persuasion. Much has been written about the art of persuasion and "insult your audience," isn't generally a recommended technique. One counterexample is "pickup artists". They theorize that by insulting or "negging" women they can motivate the woman to counter the insult by seeking the mans approval. While this does work on some small percentage of women, the vast majority are more motivated to find their mace.

This was where I was at 6 months ago. They even had the gall to say, "things will shape up as we get closer." This is an attack vector and no, it will only go away after the election. People who defend the stance who aren't foreign actors are useful idiots.

Why in the world would you make this thread? Almost every single day for at least the last month (and still often beforehand) there have been threads where the liberals and the leftists aggressively talk in circles on this issue. The odds of you hearing anything new are incredibly low, and you might as well just go back to .ml's c/news threads for the same material.
I just can't keep having people yell the same nonsense at me over and over. If you're really badly in need of leftist takes, I'll DM you on request, but I don't really want to talk about it publicly anymore except in more convincingly leftist spaces than .ml has been rendered by its federation.
- If you want a more leftist space without so many liberals, you should try the dbzer0 instance.
  
  I already found (and in fact am coming from, this is an alt account) some more appropriate instances, but I appreciate your trying to be helpful.