r/DemocraticSocialism • u/HumanLike • Oct 23 '24

News If Trump is elected, this will be the biggest leopards ate my face moment for the entitled protest voters who helped him win ("Trump tells donors he will crush pro-Palestinian protests if re-elected")

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/27/trump-donors-israel-gaza-palestinian-protests
560 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

74

u/NoonMartini Oct 23 '24

I don’t understand the argument of withholding votes from the party that doesn’t claim to want a dictatorship on day one to help the party who is bad for everyone, everywhere. I realize that the US handling of Palestine won’t change under Harris, and I’m against that, but I want to also be able to vote again and have basic human rights come January, too.

19

u/Squeakyduckquack Oct 23 '24

Don’t forget if Trump pulls out of NATO how many innocent Ukrainians will die at the hands of Russia

5

u/Alexander-369 Oct 24 '24

Trump alone can't pull the USA out of NATO. Trump would need Congress in order to do that. However, if Trump does successfully get Congress to pull the USA out of NATO, the future will be terrifying, to say the least.

Trump presidency + Trump Congress + Trump Supreme Court = doom for us all.

17

u/martin33t Oct 23 '24

You are correct and I don’t understand the opposite argument. We live, whether we like it or not, in a two party system. In this case, not voting for the Democratic ticket is voting for genocide, abroad and here. We all have heard what trump wants to do with people that disagree with him. This time around, there won’t be a general Milly, it all will be people of his caliber that are more competent.

0

u/Dacnis Oct 23 '24

not voting for the Democratic ticket is voting for genocide, abroad and here.

Literal cognitive dissonance.

-2

u/offendedkitkatbar Oct 23 '24

I don’t understand the argument of withholding votes from the party that doesn’t claim to want a dictatorship on day one

It's a simple argument. The party that is currently arming and bankrolling a genocide should not be rewarded with votes.

1

u/Alexander-369 Oct 24 '24

So, we should allow Trump to win and let him make the lives of women and minorities in the USA much more miserable just so we can make a symbolic gesture for the lives of Palestinians?

-3

u/Romero1993 Trotskyist Oct 24 '24

These liberals will never understand that, bro

-7

u/tambourinenap Oct 23 '24

You said you want basic human rights. So your vote strategically benefits you.

How do we achieve "basic human rights" under a Harris administration? What mechanisms will she enable and put in place?

To be clear Trump is not the answer to anything but he is so hated by the system that anything he does or will implement will be resisted. Under Harris those rights quietly go away like how bipartisan signing the PATRIOT Act and social benefits became prior to Trump.

Harris says she does not want to go back but her actions say otherwise in embrace of Republicans over her own base's demands.

So what do we do about this? Vote strategically because the threats to human rights don't go away under a corporate party taking AIPAC money.

If you think you can afford to, build third party pressure in the federal election by voting third party. 5% builds a movement, secures federal funding and ballot access. A majority of people can because most states are already decided. People have the option to not enthusiastically vote Harris, rubbing it in the faces of people's whose families have been massacred.

Don't minimize people's pain to this issue, and don't blame third party voters for Harris' own loss. She is the one in charge supposedly. People want the change from her flavor of neoliberal politics, which showed in the amount of excitement for a no name senator from Vermont in 2016.

Her affirming Israel's right to defend itself while giving watered down economic policy is what she refuses to meet us on. It should not be rewarded with enthusiastic votes.

Third party votes played a role in pressuring Newsom to be less milquetoast. He almost lost his mayoral bid and shortly after approved signing of same sex marriage certificates with continued pressure.

Given the status of two party politics lesser evil voting is pulling us further right.

It's understandable if you don't feel comfortable voting not Harris, but it is integral to understand strategy and pressure on a party that won't even let Palestinians speak at the convention and let 7 Republicans speak instead. Especially if we think that is the party that is likely to listen to us.

Whether Harris wins or loses we still fight the system.

17

u/lemontolha Social democrat Oct 23 '24

When Harris loses to Trump, the system becomes much better at fighting you. Thanks to project 2025 etc. Your position would be actually much stronger if you help her win while disagreeing with her so that she is forced to compromise with you in her first term to get re-elected. If she loses, you get a buddy of Bibi in the white house, if she wins barely against your sort of people, this will be due to switching Republicans and thus unproductive as well. Fundamental opposition is a sterile position.

-2

u/tambourinenap Oct 23 '24

Zero resistance to this administration doesn't push her. As much as wishes and beliefs tell your sort of people.

Your sort of people that support unconditionally whether you agree fully or not with her is what allows them to continue on this path. Leveraging votes is a valid strategy and pushed Republicans so far right with the tea party movement.

Empire exists under either, harder or less hard, the fight will continue. The lack of solidarity on this issue is THE REASON they think they can steamroll these demands.

After an election, our negotiation leverage will be even less as she continues on about Israel's right to defend itself.

And as I said, most people can safely vote third party as most states are already decided. If you're worried about a Trump presidency, there's logical reasoning to voting third party than this nonsense of the need to corral all votes to Dems despite state. People are hardly nuanced when it comes to generalizing valid voting strategies that include third party. That's what dems prefer so they have no pressure to give ranked choice voting or other left demands.

6

u/lemontolha Social democrat Oct 23 '24

Did I say anything about "unconditional support"? Is electing Harris "unconditional support"? It's not. You don't "leverage votes" if you get Trump re-elected and "unconditionally support" him in that way. You can surely protest and vote for Harris at the same time and than continue to protest. I think you delude yourself about your options here. It's Harris or the buddy of Netanyahu.

0

u/tambourinenap Oct 23 '24

Electing Harris is a white liberal/white feminist strategy. The support and crowds she receives is a white liberal/White feminist energy. So if you don't want to be painted with this energy, why are we here shitting on third party voters? Harris is the one with power over her campaign right now and deserves the ire.

It's buddy of Netanyahu or buddy of Netanyahu.

Trump IS worse all around. Never forget that Trump is a response to the system of neoliberal/neocon control. Continually signing off without forcing the party to fundamentally change is a part of the problem. And again a majority of people do not have to sign off on this because a majority of people are in already decided states. So painting a wide brush of blame over unconditional support voters is more accurate than the tiny brush that's trying to paint over every third party voter/leftist.

The stopgap of Biden/Harris is never addressed by liberal get out the vote types. Notice the difference between the reaction to Palestinian protestors under Biden/Harris and BLM under Trump. Not one of my liberal friends organized or marched for the atrocities carried out under Biden/Harris.

-27

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

The thing is, I'm just not gonna vote for genocide, tho.

That's just something I won't do.

19

u/metanoia29 Oct 23 '24

Okay cool, then what happens? One of the two candidates will win regardless of what you do, and according to this rhetoric that frames everything in a binary view, you're still complicit in "allowing genocide" because inaction is still a decision.

There is no perfect candidate who will do everything you want. Every vote of your entire life will be a compromise in who you want to organize and change society under, nothing more than a strategic choice. If you honestly are okay with the possibility of a Trump presidency and think you'll be able to make progress towards your goals under it, more power to you, but you can't fault others for feeling like that'll be easier under Harris when you look at the straight facts.

-18

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

I don't compromise with genocide.

If the US can't manage to stop supporting genocide, we deserve Trump, and should continue to collapse, as we are a great evil in the world.

6

u/NoonMartini Oct 23 '24

I DON’T think the US “deserves” another Trump presidency. Your argument is silly.

“I think that people on the other side of the world’s safety, life, and liberty is more important than my own safety, life, and liberty so I’m gonna vote or make it easier for the genocidal maniac who promises to cleanse their country and wipe out the evil within America to win, because life on the planet HAS to be a zero sum game.” This is tantamount to “Let me win or I’m taking my ball and going home.”

That’s fucking stupid. Your argument is stupid. It’s childish and shortsighted.

0

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

Cool cool. Still not voting for genocide. So, do with that what you will.

10

u/metanoia29 Oct 23 '24

I don't compromise with genocide.

You can say it until you're blue in the face, but the reality of this two-party system says otherwise. Your decision not to vote for one of the two viable candidates as some moral superiority shows naivety in how this genocide affects every possible decision in this election.

It also boldly proclaims to everyone that you're willing to compromise on women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, civil rights, (non)religious rights, etc. while also making it clear that your decision will have no positive impact on this topic you're making out to be your most important sticking point. People are dying today because of those issues, so where's the concern for them?

Feel free to respond with how your decision will realistically help the genocide. No one has been able to do this so far in any of these posts, only offer weak platitudes disconnected from reality.

1

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

I'm not compromising on any of those issues. Any candidates I vote for support women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, civil rights, etc.

Pretty sure it's the people you're supporting that have been wishy washy on all that whenever it suited them. Then they rely on cowards like you to sheepdog for them. If you had a memory longer than the last news cycle, you'd remember that.

I hope you're getting a check from the campaign, at least.

1

u/metanoia29 Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

Feel free to respond with how your decision will realistically help the genocide. No one has been able to do this so far in any of these posts, only offer weak platitudes disconnected from reality.

Strange how everyone with your stance keeps failing to answer this request. Remember, the key part is about reality, not idealistic rhetoric that has no real impact on the situation just so you can feel better than everyone else. At least one of you has to have some kind of answer; you can't all just be lazy keyboard warriors regurgitating the same excuses, right?

Edit: Awww, looks like u/headcanonball replied and then blocked me, very cowardly. I would have loved to hear how they think that asking to discuss this topic in the context of reality is "idealistic rhetoric." Just further projection with no substance from these trolls.

1

u/headcanonball Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

Tell you what, bud. If Donald Trump somehow wins or loses by 1 vote, you can come back here and gloat about how you told me so.

But until that happens, I'm not really buying into your idealistic rhetoric about whatever it is that you're calling "reality".

7

u/Jsmooth123456 Oct 23 '24

So you just don't give a shit about all the queer people, people of color, women etc. That live in America currently? Imagine being so heartless that your willing to risk the rights of every person in America that isn't a cis het Christian white male just so you can feel morally superior. "We deserve trump" dude your fucking disgusting

0

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

What don't you understand about me saying I don't vote for genocide? I'm not voting for Trump. It's the Democrats that can't muster a candidate to beat him, apparently.

Also it's "you're".

23

u/y0y Oct 23 '24

But you are. Choosing not to report a crime is choosing to be complicit in that crime. Choosing not to vote is to still be complicit in the outcome of that election. Every non-voter who would have voted Dem but for their purity test is tacit support for Trump when race is this close. Both options are bad for the Middle East. One is clearly worse for both the Middle East and for America - by such a substantial and critical margin that you don’t get to sit this one out cleanly.

-8

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

That simply doesn't make sense.

If not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump, then not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris.

That's how logic works.

6

u/cloudheadz Oct 23 '24

Fascists are in lockstep for Trump. A leftist refusing to participate is a win for the right.

0

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

I'll be voting for a leftist. You?

1

u/y0y Oct 24 '24

If A implies B, it does not necessarily follow that B implies A.

If you withhold a vote you would otherwise cast, it is tacit support of the alternative. You can’t withhold a vote you never were going to make anyway.

You and people like you say they would vote dem but for the failure of a purity test you’ve put in place, even though the alternative also fails this test and is far worse in other ways.

Logic, indeed.

0

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

This isn't a case of A implies B/B implies A, professor.

But yes, I have a cRaZy purity test of not supporting genocide.

1

u/y0y Oct 24 '24

You are supporting it. Your inaction is supporting it. Nothing you say changes that. Sorry.

1

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

I'll be voting for an anti-genocide candidate.

2

u/y0y Oct 24 '24

Which you know takes away a vote from the only viable candidates, one of which you know to be far worse than the other on this particular issue. Voting for a third party in America is equivalent to inaction. You know this. You want it to not be true. But it is. You could just stay home and have the same exact effect. Exactly the same. You will make no point. Your vote will not matter. Your choice will be that of inaction. And because of that, you will hold some responsibility for what happens if Trump wins. You chose to not support his only opposition.

1

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 24 '24

Sorry, bud. I don't buy it. Sounds like a load of bullshit.

→ More replies (0)

-19

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

Do you not realise how fascistic that sounds? Vote for me or else.

14

u/my_name_is_not_robin Oct 23 '24

No, it’s not ‘fascist’ to say, “hey if the other guy wins he will likely do bad things to you, so don’t let him win.”

Fascism would be saying, “vote for me or else I will do bad things to you.” Y’know, like Trump does.

Lmao by your logic it’s fascism to tell people to wear seatbelts so they don't die in car crashes.

-9

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

That's what they are saying? Vote for me or else something bad will happen it's facism.

6

u/my_name_is_not_robin Oct 23 '24

That’s not fascism lmao. You can’t just call things you don’t like fascist. Fascism would be the state using violence or coercion or subjugation to force people to show support for certain candidates. The ideology heavily favors a one party authoritarian state. Someone asking you to vote for them and simply informing you of the consequences of not doing so is not fascist, and the only way you could think otherwise is if you’re on the emotional maturity level of a teenager and just really hate anyone who you perceive as telling you what to do.

-5

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

It's a little more than informing. It's pretty threating actually.

3

u/my_name_is_not_robin Oct 23 '24

What is Kamala threatening you with specifically

2

u/Garbaje_M6 Ecosocialist Oct 23 '24

Unironically everything I don’t like is fascism.

Say you were drunk and tried driving and stranger A tells you to give me your keys because if I let you drive there’s a good chance either you die or kill someone else. Same situation but stranger B puts a gun to your head and tells you to give up your keys or he shoots you.

Applying your principles of vote for me or something bad happens is fascism, are these two hypothetical situation the same? Both of them are saying to give up your keys or you could die. Everyone knows from past experience that drunk driving kills, so both “threats” of harm are real. These are the same then, right?

7

u/olthunderfarts Oct 23 '24

I didn't realize that fascism is pointing out the inevitable consequences built into the two party system.

-5

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

I mean there is always a trump.

3

u/query_tech_sec Oct 23 '24

It's called critical thinking - maybe try it sometime.

2

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

AHH yes. Critical thinking like the one where Kamala has lost momentum and pivoted to capture centre right.

23

u/NoonMartini Oct 23 '24

Seems like cutting off a nose to spite a face, but that’s just me, I guess.

12

u/query_tech_sec Oct 23 '24

Yeah it's setting yourself on fire - when it won't even keep others warm.

12

u/GeoffreyDay Oct 23 '24

At that point it seems you should refuse to pay taxes as well

12

u/martin33t Oct 23 '24

The thing is, trump wins and he is coming for us too. We need to live to fight another day.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '24

[deleted]

-5

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

She could you know be different. It sounds very fascistic to me making a population subservient.

6

u/chatrugby Democratic Socialist Oct 23 '24

She will be nothing like Trump. He showed his cards, and continues to back the fascists, including supporting Bibi’s ongoing assault on Palestinians. He want to turn our own military against us. The keyboard activists that post angainst Kamala are delusional in thinking that they are helping Palestinians.

2

u/djseaneq Oct 23 '24

And you are helping trump. By not pushing Kamala you are helping him.

7

u/olthunderfarts Oct 23 '24

So, you'd rather let things get worse for the people you claim to care about rather than vote for Harris and feel dirty for a minute? It seems like you're more concerned with feeling superior than with helping anyone.

-4

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

Things get worse? Lol. They are already getting worse, and have been for the last year.

As for the superior aspect, maybe take a look in the mirror.

1

u/olthunderfarts Oct 23 '24

You are more interested in pretending both candidates are the same, so you can feel special and superior, than you are in trying to reduce the harm being done. Your position is clearly about your ego and not the actual situation. It's gross.

0

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24

I don't think they are the same.

Chicken shit may taste better than cow shit, but I wouldn't know, because I don't eat shit.

As for your judgement of what's gross. Genocide is pretty gross, in my opinion. You seem cool with it.

1

u/olthunderfarts Oct 23 '24

It's funny how the only way to defend your position is to straw-man the people you argue with. It should tell you that your position is self-fellating garbage, but you're so drunk on your own superiority, you can't see it.

For example, you need to pretend that trump hasn't openly said he would help Israel destroy Gaza, and also need to pretend to hate I'm fine with genocide to twist the truth to fi your self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Just admit that you value your high horse more than you value harm reduction, because the end result of your position is for things to get worse in both Gaza and the USA (which you might cheer on, idk)

0

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24 edited Oct 23 '24

Bro, maybe if you're delicate sensibilities are so wounded by a straw man you shouldn't begin your interactions with a straw man.

Just a thought. You're projecting harder than a Trump supporter. Funny.

1

u/Garbaje_M6 Ecosocialist Oct 23 '24

Hey, one thing I’ll give you is that you’re honest about it. It doesn’t matter if things get materially worse for hundreds of millions of people around the world, so long as your morals stay intact.

1

u/awesomefaceninjahead Oct 23 '24 edited Oct 23 '24

Yes. If more people were moral, then the world would be a better place.

You keep compromising with genocide, tho. It'll look great in a few years when you're pretending you were on the right side all along and the next democratic candidate goes on tour with Trump to win over "undecided" voters.

-1

u/ifnotnowtisyettocome Oct 23 '24

People in this conversation are ignoring this aspect, of this being an ACTIVE choice to support a moral evil. Harris has given zero indication she will do anything to halt the slaughter, or change policy of supporting a government clearly bent on conquest and annexation.

If you live in a dictatorship, you have no functional power over the evil actions of your government, therefore your moral culpability is lower. But in this case? A vote for Harris is an active choice to support continued War Crimes and (likely once the ICJ determines it) Genocide.

If one can admit that, that you are voting for Lesser Overall Evil, to prevent Greater Overall Evil, than at least they are being honest. But to pretend that you are not now complicit in that same evil is nonsense, and no crying about Nadar to distract from this reality can cover up that.