• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I disagree. Trump said the problem with Israel’s actions in Gaza is that they keep recording it, and that they should just finish the job. Netanyahu is so fond of Trump, he inaugurated a town after him in Golan Heights.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/04/politics/trump-israel-comments/index.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/netanyahu-inaugurates-trump-heights-israels-newest-town-on-the-golan-heights/2019/06/16/2207cd24-9041-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html

      • Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Biden should be acting on the genocide but he isn’t and neither will Trump. The only two people capable of being in office in the next 4 years.

        So pressure Congress, protest and do everything you can but in the meantime those two are nothing alike on most other issues and being a single issue voter has never made the system better.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                So you’re suggesting Trump then? I’m not sure if you’re aware of the state of the US election system, but there are two candidates that have a chance of being elected. One of them has a voter base that will vote regardless of criminal convictions for attempting to overturn an election, inciting an insurrection, and selling national secrets.

              • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                You vote that way in the primary, not the general. All you’re doing is ensuring the worst possible outcome, rather than the one you claim you want.

          • Franklin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Unfortunately, if you view a vote as being complicit you’re complicit no matter what.

            Because with the two party bias there are only two people capable of being in that office and not voting for either of them is still a vote in and of itself.

            To be clear I don’t care who you vote for but you need to accept the reality that you are choosing one of the two whether you mean to or not.

            That’s why Congress is the only realistic way we can pressure our political system to stop what’s currently going on. The government doesn’t stop at the president and plenty of our Congress supports it too which is what allows it to be the way it is.

              • Franklin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Then you’ve failed to grasp the implicit bias that is baked into our political system.

                I’m not saying it’s right we should absolutely be trying to change that. However it’s the truth.

                Until we get something like ranked choice voting we are stuck voting for the best of two or giving power to the worse.

                  • Franklin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Yeah you absolutely can but that will whether you intend to or not give power to the other party. Which if your goal is to assuage your moral complicitency then I think you need to rethink your end result.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              there are only two people capable of being in that office

              No, anyone eligible is capable of holding that office. The reason why it’s typically only a member of one of two parties is because of people like you to continue to give them your vote and pressure others to do the same.

              • Franklin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I wish you all the luck in the world but I can tell you now that it is not me acknowledging the fact that our system has an inherent two party bias that assured the last 50 years of one of the two parties.

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  How can you argue that it’s impossible for anyone outside the Republican or Democratic party to hold office while also arguing that’s it’s imperative we vote for one of them? Both can’t be true and if you really believe that it’s impossible to affect things, I see no reason why you should feel the need to be arguing with us at all.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Believe it or not US presidents have had blood on their hands for years. Even seemingly peaceful actions like the withdrawl from Afghanistan get blood everywhere. If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.

            The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                “bloodshed and genocide are a foregone conclusion” -things nobody said

                What part of “Its going to be harder than just voting” do you not understand? Stopping violence means putting your life and wellbeing on the line. No amount of online virtue signaling will stop a genocide.

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.

                  The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.

                  You did say that.

                  Also, you’re arguing that we should put our life and wellbeing on the line to stop this, while simultaneously arguing that being anything but a party loyalist is inexcusable? That’s insanely absurd.

                  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Trying to vote against genocide in the US is obviously not possible - the US was built on genocide, and is designed to be impossible to stop while its not creating inconvenience for people who can vote here. The entire system from the ground up is designed not to be influenced to enough of a degree where that’s an option. Its like trying to swim in a lead suit.

                    This is why social movements in the US need bodies. When you’re affecting people who can vote or people near them US politicians are easier to influence.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for this bullshit… We all know how Trump feels about Israel, strongman leaders, and ethnostsates.

        Trump takes office Jan. 20, and by the end of month, Netanyahu has a blank check to carry out his genocide.

        But maybe that’s what you want…

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Are you just simply incapable of imagining that but much much worse? Like seriously. I get it dude, what the Israeli government is doing is fucking monstrous. And anyone paying attention to anything knows that not re-electcing Biden will make the nightmare several orders of magnitudes more awful.

            That’s my whole point. Yeah it’s bad right now, but it can and will get worse if Trump is elected. This is a fact.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Trump literally moved our embassy to Jerusalem. You’re a fucking fool if you think Trump and the psychotic dispensationalists that make up his base wouldn’t make that situation much much worse, then I honestly do not know what to tell you. These people literally want more of this shit because they think it means the rapture is coming. And yes, that is a significant portion of his financial base. That isn’t fringe Republican stuff anymore.

                Shit is really fucking bad over there, but if you don’t think it can get worse (and do so with direct aid and support of the US government), then you must understand very little about human behavior.