politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I guess the question at that point is, if you think Harris voters would be responsible for genocide, and nonvoters are responsible potentially even more than Trump voters, than there is no winning option. If you want to say democracy has become a lose/lose, fine, but I think it's important we're conscious of the fact we're saying that. I don't think everyone is responsible for the worst actions the people they voted for take in their capacity as public officials. I think it's worthwhile to note that and give people grace in that regard. Because otherwise we end up deciding between voting for genocide, or not voting and still carrying blame for genocide, and people make the decision to just not directly vote for it.
I'm not saying Harris lost because of Gaza, but given the choice of being considered responsible for genocide because I voted for it or because I didn't vote for it, I'd rather not vote for it. I want to note that I voted Harris, but I know people who abstained and it's hard to reach them if we (the left) continue to claim that they'd be responsible for genocide either way.
Consider this. Israel and Palestine are gonna fight. They're in an impossible situation. There are only 2 ways they move forward. One is that they agree not to retaliate when struck, and to handle aggression internally and swiftly. The second is that one of them ceases to exist. No US presidential candidate was going to make one of those things happen.*
So... the resolution of Israel/Palestine genocide wasn't on the table for the US presidential election in 2024, in the same way that the issue of Chinese treatment of Uyghurs wasn't on the table, or the UK rejoining th EU, or Mexican drug cartels foregoing violence. People who voted 3rd party, or didn't vote risked all the fascist stuff trump has done in the last 6 months, and all the shit he's going to do in the next 3.5 years, in an attempt to wash their hands of an issue that wasn't up to them to decide in the first place. So they took a large risk on everything for the extremely slim possiblity of at best gaining absolutley nothing, and now they go around crowing like they made the right decision. To me, it's like someone watching a burning bus , and as people are trying to rescue victims, they say "well at least I didn't decide to leave people behind on the bus, unlike those jerks" and the gesturing wildly at singed good samaritans who tragically weren't able to get everyone out of the blaze.
But if you're stating harris voters are still responsible for genocide then you're saying the Good Samaritan should be blamed too. If the Good Samaritan is tried for not doing enough and found guilty and so is the bystander, then people are encouraged to be the bystander because at least then they didn't choose to get burned up in addition to being held responsible for something. If you want people to help you have to have Good Samaritan laws. If you want people to vote Harris you have to give dem voters grace when the candidate does something they disagree with and they call it out. You can't just tell Harris voters "you voted for this" when Gaza is bombed while also telling trump supporters and nonvoters the same thing. At some point you leave people with no moral opinions so they check out or stop caring about your concept of morality since it cannot be lived up to.
Sure, the good samaritan had to leave someone to die in the fire because they can fucking carry everyone. Life is full of hard choices, and most of the time you have to pick the least bad option. Deal with it.
My point is that it's not helpful to tell Good Samaritans they're responsible for the people they couldn't help. We don't generally do that as a society. So if you think it was a given that people in Gaza were going to get hurt either way, blaming Harris voters for genocide on her term would also not be helpful (unless they're saying they're pro genocide). If you want people to vote for harm reduction, you can't blame them when the candidate fails to do everything right, especially if they were vocally against that specific policy.
The point is that the "blame" doesn't matter, it was all something the byststander decided to lean into to justify their decision not to help. Yes, the good samaritan had to decide to leave someone behind. They made a decision, someone who could have lived died because of it. The samaritan has to live with that for the rest of their life.
"Blame" might not matter to you, but in my experience it matters to some people. They do not want to be responsible for genocide and will rather have not voted for it, even if it was going to happen anyway. I am not attempting to police your personal feelings or morality or sense of responsibility, I'm just trying to offer some alternative perspective so that we can all work together to build a bigger tent. I think blaming people for everything their politicians do is counterproductive to harm reduction. If you don't, you can proceed as you were. I just don't think that it contributes to a better outcome and wanted to ensure someone pointed that out. Leftism has always been about building a broad coalition, and has had people with all kinds of approaches to political change. I just hope that your opinion is able to fit somewhere into the broader cause and not push people away.