“Or else” isn’t bullshit when it comes from the perspective of anyone who actually has something to lose if Trump wins.
Everyone who is on the fence or doesn’t feel like they need to vote are just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
But the same thing can be said for the people ignoring the faults of Kamala…
Especially when they’re just begging for an end of genocide, or fracking destroying their communities, or any other of multitude issues where Kamala and Trump have the same policies even though the majority of the Dem voting base disagrees with them.
It seems odd to act like the “high road” is the one where genocide is ok, when we could just have someone who was anti-genocide…
There’s fall less people willing to hold their noses to vote for genocide and fracking than the other way around. And very few people who are only voting for Kamala because her border, genocide, and fracking policies are the same as Trump’s.
The people that want that are still voting trump, if they told you that it would change your mind…
I hate to break it to you, but they lie about this shit all the time so even if they lose they win.
He doesn’t, neither does Kamala…
So why get mad at someone who’s line isnt the same place as yours?
You can tell at them to throw their morals out the window, or unite with them and demand just a little more than the bare minimum you would accept
Why is no one allowed to ask for anything more than your bare minimum? And why would you risk trump to not help get more?
I don’t logically understand your position, I understand what it is, just not why it’s your position.
Can you elaborate on how this:
just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
Isn’t applicable to you wanting people to ignore genocide? In some cases where it’s literally their close family over there as the victims?
It’s actually sad that you would talk about privilege. That may apply to some people. What if for example your cousin is living in Palestine? What then? What privilege do you have? If you vote for Harris, you’re guaranteed more of the same.
The privilege that you have is that you don’t have family members dying from policies that Harris endorses. And I think Trump would be even worse, so there’s a practical argument that people should vote for Harris anyway, but that’s a tough sell if it’s your immediate family or your best friends who are in the literal crosshairs.
I’m just sorry to say, but the situation in Palestine is not up for vote right now. This election will not change that outcome, short of keeping the “finish the job” candidate out of office while maybe the more reasonable of the two can eventually decide to do the right thing.
If none of the “other stuff” that is actually up for vote matters to people, though, then those people aren’t allies and apparently don’t care if they end up living under a christofascist regime that won’t need elections anymore.
I disagree. I think each voter is going to choose what the relevant issues are and then they’re going to vote. You can try to tell us what issues matter, but people are going to make up their own mind.
Also, it’s quite obvious that who becomes the next president does have an impact on what happens in Palestine.
Everyone who is on the fence or doesn’t feel like they need to vote are just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
I agree with your first sentence, but honestly your second sentence doesn’t matter. No one has the right or ethical high ground to command or threaten another person to vote the way they want, regardless of whether they sympathize with that person’s position.
Actual Trump voters, many of whom are voting against their own best interests as well as yours and mine, have the right to make their uninformed/hateful/self-harming/selfish (pick one or more as applicable) vote, and so do folks whose vote we disagree with for other reasons.
We all think our reasons for voting the way we are (including abstaining) are valid, and at the level of the voting booth it seems to me that we have to respect everyone else’s as valid even when we don’t feel they are.
If we do not do so, I don’t see how that doesn’t lead to either:
a) commanding another to vote as you desire
or
b) thought policing people
I find either of those to be unacceptable for any purpose.
My perspective is that no one has the right to infringe on the rights of others, and to me any act that facilitates Trump entering the white house creates a greater infringement on human rights than any vote that facilitates Harris.
These are things that shouldn’t even need to be decided by an election, they should just be codified and not up for vote at all, but here we are.
Persuade all you want.
Threatening/intimidating/commanding people to vote in a particular way is not OK though. It’s not something where the end justifies the means, and it’s a pandora’s box that should not be opened. OP would be rightly called a threat if a conservative version of it was posted. It’s akin to this, minus the power dynamic.
