I realize my two posts are disjointed, because I wasn't planning on writing a response and was trying to condense my points in the first one. I have voted third party or write-in in the last several presidential elections and plan to do so again because I have the "luxury" of "throwing my vote away."
I realize my two posts are disjointed, because I wasn't planning on writing a response and was trying to condense my points in the first one. I have voted third party or write-in in the last several presidential elections and plan to do so again because I have the "luxury" of "throwing my vote away."
Unlike you, I live in a swing state, but still will be unable to vote for Harris, unless she disavows the genocide. I've mostly voted for third parties during my many decades of voting, but sometimes have voted for the Democrat (for example, I voted for Bill Clinton before his first term; I voted third party when ran a second time, following his abominable performance (three strikes you're out??? ). Here, I'm confronted by, perhaps, the most genocide of my lifetime (hard to say, given all the wars we've been engaged in). But at some point, we must, I think, be guided by a moral compass that has some meaning. Defending American 'democracy' (which doesn't exist) vs supporting the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not a difficult decision. We must support humanity, not false or imagined democracies.
I understand where you're coming from and appreciate you laying out your perspective.
People have different concepts of what voting in a US presidential elections means. Telling someone who says they won't vote for Harris that they want Trump to win and telling someone who would vote for her that they support genocide require similar assumptions about other people's subjective motivations and the strategy they've chosen in the electoral system.
I'm mostly trying to think about the genocide somewhat outside the context of the election because November is a long way away (and inauguration day is even further) so we need to continue putting pressure on the current administration, including Harris, to stop arming Israel immediately. Every day more people are dead, maimed, injured, losing family members, starving, getting infections. I think protesting at her events and demanding concrete action in exchange for considering voting for her are effective strategies for keeping the pressure on.
Just want to say I appreciate your perspective as well. And we're agreed about specious accusations. I never intended to suggest that you support genocide, in the event you decide to vote for Harris. I only want to urge consideration of the moral question inherent in such a choice. In the meantime, we can agree we should all protest while we can.
I realize my two posts are disjointed, because I wasn't planning on writing a response and was trying to condense my points in the first one. I have voted third party or write-in in the last several presidential elections and plan to do so again because I have the "luxury" of "throwing my vote away."
Thanks. I understand now.
Unlike you, I live in a swing state, but still will be unable to vote for Harris, unless she disavows the genocide. I've mostly voted for third parties during my many decades of voting, but sometimes have voted for the Democrat (for example, I voted for Bill Clinton before his first term; I voted third party when ran a second time, following his abominable performance (three strikes you're out??? ). Here, I'm confronted by, perhaps, the most genocide of my lifetime (hard to say, given all the wars we've been engaged in). But at some point, we must, I think, be guided by a moral compass that has some meaning. Defending American 'democracy' (which doesn't exist) vs supporting the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not a difficult decision. We must support humanity, not false or imagined democracies.
I understand where you're coming from and appreciate you laying out your perspective.
People have different concepts of what voting in a US presidential elections means. Telling someone who says they won't vote for Harris that they want Trump to win and telling someone who would vote for her that they support genocide require similar assumptions about other people's subjective motivations and the strategy they've chosen in the electoral system.
I'm mostly trying to think about the genocide somewhat outside the context of the election because November is a long way away (and inauguration day is even further) so we need to continue putting pressure on the current administration, including Harris, to stop arming Israel immediately. Every day more people are dead, maimed, injured, losing family members, starving, getting infections. I think protesting at her events and demanding concrete action in exchange for considering voting for her are effective strategies for keeping the pressure on.
Just want to say I appreciate your perspective as well. And we're agreed about specious accusations. I never intended to suggest that you support genocide, in the event you decide to vote for Harris. I only want to urge consideration of the moral question inherent in such a choice. In the meantime, we can agree we should all protest while we can.