So you voted for someone you know won’t get elected. So you’re ok with the worse of the two between Dem and Rep? Because you had a chance to help prevent the worse of the two coming into office and didn’t. Choosing to cast a vote that won’t impact the outcome helps literally no one. The Gaza situation is not all that is happening in the world.
But you realize that a Dem or Rep is who will be president. And they won’t handle the situation exactly the same. So you’re allowing the person who will handle it worse a better chance to be in power. That is literally what you’ve done. So if the worst happens, the option you could have helped prevent, just know you had a chance to make it less bad and decided your conscious was worth more than people’s lives.
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn’t.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It’s obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won’t get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you’ve not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won’t need it, it won’t change anything.
Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won’t say shed do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.
I’m not and have never in this post debated about who will fund what. They made a moral stance that “There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.” My point was to show how flawed that stance is. Which people still seem to disagree with. It seems like to most people giving $10 to Israel or $10 Billion is the same thing and causes the same amount of harm. Nothing but rigid morals that end up hurting more people in the long run.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn’t going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can’t.
I’m not voting for genocide. In fact I already voted against genocide.
The Dems nor Republicans have a candidate that is against genocide.
So you voted for someone you know won’t get elected. So you’re ok with the worse of the two between Dem and Rep? Because you had a chance to help prevent the worse of the two coming into office and didn’t. Choosing to cast a vote that won’t impact the outcome helps literally no one. The Gaza situation is not all that is happening in the world.
I’m not ever going to vote for a genocide, and there is no moral high ground if you do .
But you realize that a Dem or Rep is who will be president. And they won’t handle the situation exactly the same. So you’re allowing the person who will handle it worse a better chance to be in power. That is literally what you’ve done. So if the worst happens, the option you could have helped prevent, just know you had a chance to make it less bad and decided your conscious was worth more than people’s lives.
There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn’t.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It’s obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won’t get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you’ve not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won’t need it, it won’t change anything.
Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won’t say shed do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.
I’m not and have never in this post debated about who will fund what. They made a moral stance that “There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.” My point was to show how flawed that stance is. Which people still seem to disagree with. It seems like to most people giving $10 to Israel or $10 Billion is the same thing and causes the same amount of harm. Nothing but rigid morals that end up hurting more people in the long run.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn’t going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can’t.
Oh, I assure you… they can, and they will.
How?
removed by mod
But it isn’t happening that way so it doesn’t matter.