10 Feb
10:54am, 10 Feb 2025
256 posts
|
Joe1970
Johnny Blaze wrote: I wonder how those people who declined to vote for Harris "because Gaza" are feeling now? I'm one of those ridiculous lefties that would almost certainly have not voted for Harris, although I wouldn't have voted for Trump either. The thing is, no matter what Trump says or does, it's still a historical fact that Biden and his handlers spent 15 months facilitating a genocide in Gaza which could not have happened without US backing. Centrists now shouting about how awful Trump is need to remember that their man was entirely on board with moving Palestinians into Sinai or Jordan in late 2023 (or ethnic cleansing, as it's known) and was quite correctly rebuffed by Egypt and Jordan. There's nothing new here, the removal of Palestinians from their homeland has been an Israeli policy goal since before the state even existed. It's entirely probable that Netanyahu will sabotage the current ceasefire before long, but at least there is some form of short term ceasefire, which wouldn't have happened under Biden (despite him working "tirelessly" for months on it, and continual promises it was just around the corner) so I don't think anything has got worse for Palestinians now Trump is in charge. As ever, he's just the ugly face of what the US and Israel do, he just says out loud what the Democrats would prefer to be done quietly. |
10 Feb
11:39am, 10 Feb 2025
5,823 posts
|
J2R
The ceasefire happened under Biden.
|
10 Feb
11:44am, 10 Feb 2025
47,020 posts
|
SPR
I think you know that's not the full picture given at that point Biden had no real power. We have enough info confirming Trump's influence with him wanting the ceasefire agreed before he took office. It's pretty clear that if Trump was happy with Israel continuing to bomb Gaza there wouldn't have been a ceasefire.
|
10 Feb
12:01pm, 10 Feb 2025
18,448 posts
|
jda
Hard to disagree with @Joe1970, if the genocide was the sole factor in your vote, then "neither of them" would be a very reasonable decision to take. For me, it wouldn't have been, not least because one of them was going to win, and the choice is really genocide + the rest of Trump vs genocide + the rest of Harris. Of course similar arguments were made for holding our noses and voting Labour and I didn't do that. |
|
10 Feb
12:08pm, 10 Feb 2025
18,450 posts
|
jda
However those voting for televised deportations under Labour will no doubt be thrilled with their choice.
|
10 Feb
12:16pm, 10 Feb 2025
551 posts
|
DaveG
Taking the 'neither of them' option is always saying 'I don't care which of the approaches is used'. If you think there's a candidate who will kill 300,000 civilians, and one who would kill 600,000 civilians, then taking the 'don't care which' option is basically saying you don't care about many people die. People try to justify it by saying 'I won't vote for something I don't believe in'. But if you've only got two options and are being asked which to vote for it's not about personally endorsing a view or having to believe it in. It's about weighing up the best of the options available to you. There are things you can do to try to alter public opinions so candidates more closer to a position you like. But that doesn't change whether you should pick from the options available. Failing to pick is just saying they are equal. |
|
10 Feb
12:27pm, 10 Feb 2025
18,451 posts
|
jda
There were more than two options on the ballot, and you can write in the name of anyone else.
|
|
10 Feb
12:29pm, 10 Feb 2025
5,824 posts
|
J2R
My saint isn't saintly enough, so I've decided to let the Devil win.
|
|
10 Feb
12:44pm, 10 Feb 2025
552 posts
|
DaveG
There might be more than two options on the ballot, but it was only Harris or Trump who could have won. If for our work Christmas dinner I'm given two options to vote between I can write in 'KFC', but that just means I'm not influencing which of the two plausible options we go to. The last general election was the first time for years I've actually voted Labour. Living in a tight SNP/Tory I've been voting SNP for the previous few. I don't like the SNP, but it's better for Labour they get the seat than the Tories. Voting Labour would achieve precisely nothing. It's never solely about voting for your preferred option, it's about voting for the best option given the likely outcomes. |
|
10 Feb
12:50pm, 10 Feb 2025
257 posts
|
Joe1970
DaveG wrote: Failing to pick is just saying they are equal. Yes, that's pretty much what I feel about the US choices. You could argue that Dems are better on abortion, or that Reps are better on Ukraine, or whatever, and there are a handful of differences between them I guess. I've held my nose and voted for Labour as the least bad option before, so I do understand the argument, but if actively facilitating a genocide is not a red line then I'm not sure what is. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018