Are Arabs in Michigan Really Prepared to Hand the Presidency Back to Donald Trump? In a Word: Yes.

return2ozma@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 59 points –
Are Arabs in Michigan Really Prepared to Hand the Presidency Back to Donald Trump? In a Word: Yes.
yahoo.com
90

You are viewing a single comment

Please explain how electing a Republican in 6 months could possibly lower their families chances tomorrow. People not pressuring Biden are telling them don't worry six months from now you can keep things exactly as bad for your family as they are now, but if you don't we promise it will get even worse.

0 opportunity to improve things and a fat chance to make them worse, gee I wonder why they're not sold. Dead is dead, and we are asking them to give us six months of waiting on the off chance that things would be worse the other way.

I'm going to keep it đź’Ż with you. Those people are in danger no matter who is in office because Israel is hellbent on commiting genocide, and the United States is strategically aligned with Israel. That isn't going to change in the immediate term no matter what delusions you or anyone else might have.

What will get A LOT fucking worse is the future for everyone in the United States that is not part of the oligarchy if Donald Trump gets back in office. There won't be any chance to make reforms, or change US foreign policy. Anybody that isn't white, upper class, or a collaborator is going to become a second class citizen.

So it is time to decide whether you are going to support the party that is going to preserve democracy, or if you are going to doom this country because you want everyone to identify with the suffering of those in Gaza. Either way, Gaza will be in the same position that it is in right now. All we are discussing is whether we are going to doom millions more people along with them.

Or Biden could change course? He's got time and the ramping up of pressure against him will hopefully reach a fever pitch that he'll have no choice but to do so. If not, then he really likes Israel more than he likes democracy, and it's as much his fault as it is the people who refuse to vote for the guy who's killing their family members.

It's really weird how people have seen the ramping up in pressure cause him to change course and then just decide that's the limit, and further pressure will be ineffective.

Please explain how electing a Republican in 6 months could possibly lower their families chances tomorrow.

Certainly. The republiQan party's ties to the Netanyahu right-wing government are much stronger and more aligned. They also wish to wipe out the population of Palestine and take their land. The Democratic party does not align with those goals.

That's how they could lower their familie's chances. Does that make sense?

No, because you are still failing to address the time aspect. Tomorrow, as in 6 months before the elections.

It doesn't. This is our american bed. Lay in it. This is what happens when lobbyists and affluent people are allowed to place hundreds of millions of free speech into the pockets of politicians. This is what happens when religion and government mix, even slightly. The only chance those people have of America ending support tomorrow is a violent uprising that would most likely make everything worse for every American. Pick your poison, they all cause death.

Wow, what agreat sales pitch to encourage people to vote for the guy who's killing their family members...

Go ahead and bury your head in the sand then. You know what? Just go vote for Trump. You'll love it.

I'm definitely not voting for Trump. I live in a blue state where my vote doesn't matter anyway. I'm just saying, you guys aren't helping as much as you think you are. Look at it from their point of view. They're not thinking rationally, and honestly, I don't expect them to. It's an emotionally charged situation when people you know or people like you are being genocided. The effort would be better spent trying to force Biden to change tactics on supporting Israel before election day.

Oh believe me I did the uncommitted thing too. There are just other remedies than voting for Trump and fucking all of us.

If the choice is between just them being fucked and everyone being fucked, there's plenty of people who would choose the latter, especially if that threat could potentially be used to reduce their fucking. Maybe just try to do something to help people whose families are dying instead of pleading for them to think of you?

"That shit over there is killing my family, let me bring it to where I live."

a) That you need to enhance a Trump victory to him bombing US cities has to induce some minimal recognition that you're going far off course.

b) That you think people wouldn't risk their lives to save their family really speaks to how dumb it is to stick your head into their business. It's just a hypothetical in a game theory thought argument to you, not actual people.

That b point sounds like a wild assumption. Israel is ruled by a right wing extremist party. Can you see how we don't want a right wing extremist party to take control here? That's the relation. No game theory hypothetical.

The right wing party is killing people outside of Israel. Most Israelis are perfect fine with the bloodshed, just as most Americans were happy with our decades of war and drone strikes. And you're still not approaching this as if real people these voters loved are being killed right now because of Biden's policy choices. It's not an assumption, it's evident in how flippant you are about them just letting it go.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

Yeah there aren’t any US Presidential elections before November, that I’m aware of anyway.

I mean after six months is a kind of tomorrow, it’s just not literally tomorrow. Using the election to press a point is not really relevant if we’re not talking about the election though. We’d otherwise just agree.

They want him to change NOW. Not six months from now after he's elected. NOW. The electoral threat is meant to cause current changes.

Threatening to vote against a politician is really the only leverage voters have, and it's not like they just wait until the week of an election to demand things. "If you don't do this, I won't vote for you" is a standard template for demanding action.

well, howabout this: we’ll join in all the foot-stomping and loud sighing up until the election. If we can get some concessions through it - great! All for it.

But we vote Biden in November. Because if you want to drive the election like an asshole and steer it into the ditch so trump gets in - Yeah, no. Not just no, but HELL no.

How is this even a question? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Have you ever even voted before? Honestly the cavalier attitude to trump getting in is batshit insanity. I hope y’all are just stoned as fuck.

Sure, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It'll notably look exactly like what you're exasperated about though. "We're definitely going to vote for you but we're angry" is shorthand for "ignore me".

Only if the whole “representative” part of democracy is a sham and a joke. I don’t think it is.

It’s weak, yes, in some ways broken, constantly under siege, in actual existential danger at the present time - but it’s real and the best version we’ve come up with yet in the history of the world. And it wasn’t easy to get here.

It's representative because the representatives need their constituents' votes to stay in power. It may not be a spoken exchange, but that's exactly the exchange that takes place with every call. That's not a sham, that's exactly what makes it a democracy. The idea that elected officials broadly act out of the goodness of their hearts is describing a benevolent aristocracy. Also a fantasy.

. . . ? Sorry, it’s representative but only because politicians need votes?

Not sure what the point is there.

And they do things for their constituents because otherwise they will lose votes. Which you seem to think would only occur if the democracy was a joke rather than the very core of the system.

Not “only” because they’d lose votes, but yes that is a feature of the representative system. What is it you think I’m saying about it? I think you’re saying representative democracy is bad because the representatives need votes to be in office . . . ?

It’ll notably look exactly like what you’re exasperated about though. “We’re definitely going to vote for you but we’re angry” is shorthand for “ignore me”.

Only if the whole “representative” part of democracy is a sham and a joke. I don’t think it is.

This sounds like you believe telling a representative that your vote is assured but your angry with their choice will get them to take your concerns seriously unless the "representative" part is a sham, but there's no inherent expectation of goodness in a representative democracy. If they don't want to do something and you (and all your allies) tell them "we want you to change your position, but we're going to vote for you regardless of what you do", you've told them all they need to know, because ignoring you won't cost them any votes and presumably the other choice either will or is just what they'd like to do.

"Representative" democracy just means we hand over immediate power to the people we vote for to do the day to day governing. It doesn't mean they actually innately represent their constituents nor does it involve just guessing who'd be best every four years and then sitting back and hoping it goes well.

Politicians ignore their constituents all the time. I'm glad that Biden doesn't give a fuck that some pro-life zealots are big mad that he doesn't ban abortion. He knows they have almost no chance of voting for him and it would lose him a bunch of his actual voters. But if we all got together and said "hey Joe, don't worry about what we want on abortion, we're 100% with you regardless", he might start thinking about softening his stance on abortion bans to pick up a few more votes from the zealots. You can leave the threat to not vote for them unsaid, but the threat is what gets them to change their stance, and if you preemptively rule out ever taking away the thing they want in the transaction, they have no reason to do so.

Votes in exchange for policy is the whole deal. There's no requirement in a functioning democratic system for the representatives to just do stuff out of innate goodness.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...