• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you hate them exactly equally then I guess feel free not to vote.

    A lot of people, ethically, would feel compelled to use their vote to minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide. Avoiding the question by pretending everyone sucks equally instead of actually trying to improve things is not some moral high road.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      minimize the amounts of deaths by genocide

      Supporting the guy thats continuing to fund and arm genocide is not minimizing death

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It is if that guy can get the genocide to stop earlier than the other guy could. Or if the other guy would stop it earlier then vote for him.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          It is 100% within Biden’s power to have stopped it October 8. The exact same way that Ronald Reagan did when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1982. All he has to do is threaten to cut off funding and weapons exactly like Ronald Reagan did in 1982. Ronald Reagan got results, Joe Biden the self-proclaimed Zionist, has refused to do the same thing that he has the power to do.

          • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            You are allowed to believe that Israel would have not responded to Hamas after Oct 7th militarily if Biden had acted differently, or that they would stop if Biden acted differently now. Or that they would if Trump won and then he threatened to cut off funding and weapons (if you think he would actually do anything Israel didn’t like).

            If you think those things, then pick the person who is going to do the thing that will have the result you want. If neither will do the thing, it’s a moot point.

            • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              then pick the person

              Thats more of the lesser evil myth. Neither is getting a vote from me, they have not earned it.

              • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                You’re just going in circles now. We covered this. There is one major party candidate whose election will result in less death via genocide. Pick the one you think it is and vote for them or you will be helping the one who will cause more death via genocide.

                You are free to vote for whoever you want, but it’s not much of a stand against genocide to be so indignant that you decide to help the person that will result in more death via genocide.

                  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    That’s exactly full circle to where we came from. No death is not on the ballot in an election for US president.