And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?

  • Formesse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 minutes ago

    Do you have one reason to not vote for Harris, or Many reasons not to vote? Lets say in this Trolley like problem scenario that Flipping the lever to run over one is voting for Harris, flipping it to roll over the list is voting for trump - and rejecting making the choice is walking away.

    Thing is - this gets complicated: Just because someone publicly says they aren’t voting because of Gaza does not mean 1. they didn’t vote, and 2. doesn’t mean they don’t see all the other problems - because left organizations/groups have a tendency of vilifying anyone that opposes their view points excessively - because they have the moral high ground supposedly - the end result is: People won’t speak up about the real reasons, they will stick to the socially acceptable one and move on. It’s far easier, simpler.

    So: What is on the long list of problems?

    1. Biden ending the “Stay in Mexico” Agreement.

    2. Tax payer dollars being sent to illegal immigrants in various ways.

    3. The way deaths were assigned to Covid - even when the person had stage 4 cancer, and covid was maybe a contributing factor.

    4. Catch and Release policies found in a number of Democrat stronghold cities - to a point that stores are giving up trying to operate in the regions. And I’m not talking small locations - I’m talking big businesses. Small ones end up going belly up because they can’t eat the costs, insurance premiums for protecting your inventory in the areas have gone up and that means small businesses can’t afford to insure, and that raises their risks.

    Should I continue?

    Trumps anti-sanctuary city, record on putting in effective policy to deal with the southern boarder problem, and take on the fact that US cities should be sanctuaries for US citizens - well: That resonates with people. It resonates in California (where voter support from previous years to today went up ~8%), it resonates in New york (comparing previous years to today is ~+7% over previous years), even in Texas (~3% uptick). Trump WON the popular vote with fairly high voter turn out.

    The Truth is

    No person struggling in their own life, cares all that much about people in another country. When the government can find money to fund a foreign war - people are going to start wondering why they can’t find money to fix roads, law enforcement, housing, and other issues back home: It would be far cheaper over all.

    In a world where crime has gone up since 2020, while being down from 2013: People are going to see it. And if you live in Seattle, or New York it’s difficult to ignore massive stores closing locations and a growing number of vacant store fronts. And should that problem continue - it’s going to cause further knock on effects. After all: Blank store fronts are not attractive, and if you make them look full - those looking for space are going to presume it’s filled. And these buildings are often times leveraged - and if they reduce lease rates to draw in interest, they may very well have debts called in: And that will hurt the current owners. Worse yet - without revenue coming in, it’s very likely that SOME of the maintenance needed is being avoided.

    So while some the Gaza issue is JUST the Gaza issue - my bet, is that to a lot of people, it’s just the socially acceptable excuse. But honestly - it has some legitimacy as well. After all: Supporting the war effort with a lot now, or a smaller amount over a bit of time nets the same result.

  • blarth@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If you think there was a genuine argument to not vote for Harris over Gaza war crimes, you were amongst those successfully manipulated by Russia. That argument was entirely of America’s enemies’ making as a means to get Trump elected.

  • ESC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I think this was just one issue of many that led to her loss, but to answer your question, it’s somewhat simple:

    There are 2 viable options. Voting for one shows support for their platform. But if the 2 options stand together on an important issue and the voter is on the other side of it, the voter cannot support their stance by voting for either option. Voting for either would only serve to erase their opinion which is counter-productive.

    If a voter’s opinions cannot be expressed by voting for either option, then it leaves one final recourse to be heard: To not vote for either of them.

    This shows up as a drop in turnout. A substantially poor turnout means that there are voters that can be picked up next cycle if either party cares to cater to them. If any parties do this, then the non-voters have successfully exerted influence.

    Maybe you disagree that this is a logical strategy but consider this:

    Some citizens tried this and lo and behold, their voices were heard. The whole internet is up in arms! All that remains now is to see whether the politicians listen.

    They probably won’t, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if people turned out to vote against their beliefs on the matter. Which means that, on this issue, the strategy of withholding votes has already been more successful than any outcome that could be arrived at through voting (because, again, those outcomes would only serve to silence these potential voters).

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    My own argument to these people has been that I’d prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won’t get elected.

    In this election’s current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.

    If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.

    Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 hours ago

    You should make a Twitter account and follow some channels posting the war crimes committed by Israel. Be sure to watch some gore. A beheaded baby every day with their guts flowing out.

    You will understand very quickly if you leave the echo chamber and see what the word genocide really means. Only a monster can justify it.

  • RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Many people gave up the “vote blue no matter who” sentiment after seeing the results of blue politicians in 2016 and 2020. It’s no surprise people are voting with their hearts more than settling for less now.

    What’s interesting is that the Republican party welcomed in these neglected voters. Can you blame them? The Democratic party doesn’t even promote progressive policies anymore. The Democratic party is now the pro-war party too.

    I’m not surprised that Trump won. Hilary, Harris, and Biden were all terrible choices

    Personally I think people like Tulsa Gabbard and Andrew Yang are playing the long game within the Republican party as the Democrats shut down any chance for change.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    To quote a user from another thread:

    Theyre not the ones that need to learn. Voters need to learn DNC is a bunch of wealthy moderates grifting voters.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I think some people have explained it decently, but as someone who did not vote for Harris, I have a simple explanation:

    I do not want the Democratic party to think it’s Ok to be slightly better than Trump.


    If I’m going to be honest, trans rights and immigration are minor issues compared to inequality and war in Gaza.

    The Dems can be better, but they choose not to. Me voting for Dems signals that what Dems are doing is acceptable, but it’s not. I supported third party in 2024, and I will continue to do so until the Democrats get serious reform.

    (For those who think it would be “less bad” with Harris, that’s the problem. I don’t care for “less bad” when the duopoly got us here regardless. Represent the people.)

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    because americans see voting the same as buying and endorsing a thing which is objectively wrong.

    Not buying a product hurts the manufacturer.

    Not voting does jack shit. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

    America has powerful Karen/Kyle energy where people overreact to a slight flaw in service and this argument is the Karen/Kyle Tantrum argument over genuinely bad policies supported by Harris. They think if they take a fit this election they will be in a better spot next election. The reality is that more poeple will be homeless and out of reach. The media will be in worse shape.

    Voting is always a trolley problem.

    But overall I don’t think that’s the biggest group of people. The majority of people that didn’t vote I think were tuned out of the election because of ongoing failures.

  • djsoren19@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    To start, we have to understand that the genocide of Palestine started before the October 7th attacks. Israel’s rampant illegal settlements in the Gaza strip may have been the final straw that provoked Hamas to make a move, but Palestinians have been abused, forced into ghettos, and murdered by private citizens for decades. All of this, and nobody in the West ever really batted an eye at the suffering except for a handful of informed leftists.

    If Harris had won, the most likely outcome is that the immediate conflict would eventually be paused, just like it paused after the second intifadas. No land would be returned, no settlements removed, but Hamas’ forces would be decimated to the point they could not fight back and Israel would return to their quiet slow genocide until the stars align to renew their attack once more.

    Now that Trump has won, the most likely outcome is…that the immediate conflict will eventually pause, just like it paused after the second intifadas. Israel isn’t an island, if they ramp up their aggression ever further, eventually other parts of the world will push for sanctions on Israel. A Trump win doesn’t suddenly give Israel carte blanch to build the gas chambers, they still have to pay lip service to international law. Israel will inflict a grievous wound on Hamas, deep enough that it will take another generation before conflict resumes, and go back to expanding their settlements.

    This genocide has been happening since before I was born, and multiple Democrat presidents have had an opportunity to say something or work towards curbing Israeli aggression. They’ve all vaguely promised to work towards a two-state solution, knowing that the current two states are what they want. If Kamala Harris couldn’t even call it a genocide, then she was no different, and it would be foolish to think she would actually take any steps towards meaningfully stopping Israel.

  • Nadru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The arguments are as stupid as you guessed.

    These are naive emotional people who are dumb as fuck. I know so many in my life and it’s like arguying with a brick wall.

    Children still believe we live in a black and white world, democrats are in power now, genocide is happening, they will not vote for them. The concept that both will finance the genocide but another will be much worse is not something they can understand.

    You have others that want to intentionally punish democrats for not doing anything. Great in the meantime, Trump will provide a full carte blanche to Nettanyahu in the middle east, he will continue what he’s doing, annex everything without any limits. They were partying in Israel after Trump won.

    A third group wants the system to break down because they think if you’re a post collapse society, they will be able to build their utopia.

    Yes as dumb idiots living in la la land.

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Because the standard for Democrats is perfectionism, but the standard for Republicans is “That’s just Trump being Trump.”

    In other words, they didn’t think it through, they got suckered by propaganda.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Don’t worry. Trump won. You’ll hear a whole lot less about Gaza and genocide now.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It starts with fury. Everything is beyond messed up over there.

    Add in: anger funnels focus. Tunnel vision. It almost feels morally wrong to think of another thing. Anger helps you in a physical fight, so this makes sense. Also, ordering lunch while your neighbor’s house burns down is kinda dickish.

    Add in: first past the post voting. This is the big clincher. It forces two party systems mathematically, and most people understandably haven’t heard why.

    Factoring in the information in that video, you realize your choice really is Harris or Trump. Third choices get transformed into a vote for the candidate you dislike the most. So you take the best option.

    Take away the knowledge of first past the post, and you have every reason to think that third parties will work if you all just had some spine and imagination, god damnit. You resolve not to let yourself be one of the ones who sat by silently while horrible things happen!

    Cast protest vote thinking it makes you one of the people who actually helped, not realizing first past the post transforms that vote into a vote for trump, and everybody keeps fighting instead of watching that video and letting the facts it points out inform what they do.