Major Critics Of Gaza War Say Trump Will ‘Accelerate The Killing’

The ambiguity is ironically a good sign. That she isn't outright committed to the status quo. But rather not willing to signal her actual position. If she came out strongly against Israel and for Palestine. Unfortunately that would be a large hindrance to her candidacy in the current climate.

It's a shame that those illegally occupying Palestine have such influence over our government. Especially after their terrorist attacks of the last few days. Not to mention the decades long slow genocide that's only accelerated in the last year.

Well, your thought experiment actually just agrees with the uncommitted, since if they don't want to negotiate now that they want your vote, what hope you have after you lost that leverage?

bashing on Harris and pushing false equivalence

You claim the Ds and Rs are the same, but you can very clearly see that the Ds are in favor of 10% less infanticide.

That’s the only two choices we have

The genocidiers have us by the balls, folks. Nothing you can do but voice your full throated support for one of them.

I mean if I understand you correctly you're saying bascially the same thing as OP - can hold Biden/Harris feet to the fire while working to re-elect Kamala and defeat Trump.

Do you just not understand how voting actually works?

No, it is basic statistical analysis of outcomes.

🤦

Israel has already slaughtered a full 10% of the population of Gaza.

idk why you put full here, i feel like just saying 10% would work just as well, seems more semantically confusing to me more than anything lol.

I'm not sure what it's trying to imply.

Or maybe listen to your representstives and figure out why they don't agree with you. Maybe they know something you don't.

The article is about the group publicly saying it is important to vote with the intention of keeping Donald out even while they cannot endorse Harris. Maybe you should join them?

This trolley problem has a large number of the same people across two tracks, but one of the tracks has a large number of additional people that the other track bypasses. It is not a complicated trolley problem to solve.

The Trolley Problem is all about how there's frequently no good options in a scenario. People are gonna die whether or not you make a decision, and you'd be right to walk away from that lever if there were equal amounts of death on each track. But there frequently are not equal situations. Six people versus one person. A kid versus an old man. 7 Nuns versus 10 Lawyers. The person you love the most in the world versus the person you hate the most in the world.

Sure, you have to be discerning and look for any tracks that don't have something tied to them. That's why I mention that self-driving cars, thanks to their sensors, don't have to hit the bus full of school children or the SUV full of nuns -- they've seen the bus and the SUV and the idiot merging into traffic and the idiot on their phone and everything else due to their 27 different cameras and their LADAR and RADAR and so on, and to the advanced AI computer that can pay attention to all those sensors at once, and have calculated a path to escape to the track that doesn't have anyone being killed in the phony concocted examples of why AI cars are bad.

But in regards to the Presidency, there literally is a Trolley Problem here, and it IS as straight forward as you say it isn't. Come January of next year, one of two people will take the Oath of Office.

• Kamala Harris, who you say is a genocidal maniac who will enable the mass murder and enslavement of Gaza by the Israelis...
• Donald Trump, who himself has said is a genocidal maniac who will not only enable but accelerate the mass murder and enslavement of Gaza by the Israelis, and who plans on bringing that treatment right back to home for LGBTQ+, minorities, non-Christians, and women.

Jill Stein, Cornel West, Chase Oliver (seriously, I had to go look this guy up!), and whoever else promises you they can fix a Broken Washington won't be elected to that office. Period. End of line. All they'll accomplish is taking votes away from the major party candidate closest aligned to your positions, and ensure the other guy gets into office. The track of no genocide is an illusion, a mirage that fades the moment you look at it too hard. I know. It sucks. We all want more options for people to represent us. But those are the rules, and have been the rules for literally this country's entire existence. It sucks, but denying reality won't help. Come January, one of two people will take the oath of office: a Republican and a Democrat, just like it has been for the past 150 years, and even before, albeit with Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist or Democratic-Republican vs. Whig.

I'm going to vote for the person who will do the least harm to those I care about. I'm going to push and push hard for everyone else to join me in voting for her. I'm going to constantly call out this 'but third party!' stuff. Because for everything you have accused Harris of allowing, Trump will not only do that, but a dozen other hateful things.

swallowed up by a far right religious dictatorship sworn to kill every Jew in the middle east in the name of a new Islamic Caliphate

oof, that's quite the Islamophobic take there

What makes you say that? Is there something I'm missing?

The Uncommitted group “opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing,” the statement continues. Additionally, the group is “not recommending a third-party vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country’s broken electoral college system.”

I agree with them. Including about this:

Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her

Although I would say obviously people should still vote for her because the political system is broken.

I was responding to this "news" because it is what many of us have been saying the whole time, only to be met with accusations that this must mean we think trump is better. Obviously he would be much worse for this and everything else. But that doesn't excuse the dems position.

My ideal outcome is that Harris caves and stops the Israeli version of Auschwitz which is already happening. Failing that, my ideal outcome would be that the protesters establish a credible threat going forward that supporting genocide will result in tangible political consequences. Establishing such a threat is far more important is far more important than any one election, especially when both people are pro-genocide.

The moment you commit yourself to the ideology of lesser-evilism, you have sacrificed every ounce of bargaining power you might have wielded. The concerns of reliable voters don't factor into any politician's calculus. I can't figure out whether liberals just have terrible instincts regarding wielding power, or if it's just that they don't care to wield it because they're satisfied with the status quo.

Just assume everyone making those arguments are just Maga trolls trying to siphon votes away from democrats. Saves your sanity

liberals think you can do the exact same action and it’s meaningfully different if you feel kinda bad while doing it.

They will not listen to things like how you don’t support the genocide, don’t support war, know things like genocides are horrible, any explanation about how it will get worse, or anything similar.

Literally the exact thing I just described. If your actions are indistinguishable from someone who supports genocide, then nobody gives a shit what's going on inside your head regarding it, least of all politicians.