The number of "left" voters in this community that are doing their damnedest to get Trump elected never ceases to disturb me.
Yup. These types of articles and threads are designed to help Trump but muddying the water
Single issue voters. They don't understand wider implications of their actions, however well intended they are.
But brah, it's totally acceptable to overreact when one candidate doesn't give us every little fucking thing we want, and MORE. They better cowtow, or I'm gonna keep being mean in comments because that's useful and productive for reealz.
I'll totally trash their bullshit because I'm not "working for the man", dawg. Kamala is just more bullllshiiiit or whatever stupid thing we people say. Palestine on ma dingdong, and JillStein4Prez ✌️💩💩
Do you genuinely think that people are being petulant or petty or something because they strongly object to their leadership supporting an ongoing genocide? Like this is some unreasonable "pet issue" or something?
Yes, because they are. Let's break it down.
The only factual result of the system we can vote in has the outcome of two parties.
GOP is getting people in swing states kicked off the rolls
Ranked choice hasn't hit all states yet
Ergo: anyone who doesn't vote for Harris is a vote for Trump. Like it or not.
It is a dipole. You vote for fascism and some old bitch trying to save his own ass in a clear run towards dictatorship, OR YOU VOTE AGAINST THAT.
Jill Stein and RFK Jr are wasted votes. That's the fucking facts. Get with reality.
And if your sole vote is about Gaza, GUESS WHAT? Everyone else is waiting in line to sell weapons to Israel. You won't solve that issue by voting for fascist bullshit in the US as a revenge vote.
So yeah...I'd call that fucking petulant if you're willing to vote for fascism because you don't get your fucking way. Kick and scream and do whatever you want. It's not going the way you want in either case, so don't take the extra step to "stick it to the man" by helping vote Trump in.
anyone who doesn't vote for Harris is a vote for Trump. Like it or not.
Following this logic: anyone who does not vote for Trump votes for Harris.
So a vote for third party is a vote for Harris?
No.
It's saying if you don't vote for the best chance to stop the threat to democracy (Trump) then you are, on some level, ok with what Trump will do.
Same applies the other way. If you think she's horrible for some reason but don't vote for Trump (the candidate with the best chance to beat her), then you're willing to accept her agenda.
Apparently you don't get logic. You're definitely a Stein voter.
I applied logic consistently. I see that is not appreciated here.
Is supporting a genocide fascist? If I were trying to differentiate myself from a fascist opponent, I might simply stop supporting the genocide. Would you go to war if drafted? If you don't go, someone else will. That person might shoot children in the stomach, whereas you would more compassionately aim for the head.
I literally ran down a thread a few days ago asking for comment attackers to justify dropping Israel as an ally. Nobody came at me with a viable plan aside from "Uhhhh, just stop".
That's not how it works.
Please feel free to enlighten us on your solution though.
Nobody came at me with a viable plan
Is that the one where one side of the argument kept ignoring anything other than mindless unconditional support for genocide and only genocide and kept dropping little one-word dismissals like "next" and "BYE"?
Because the thread got nuked and I'm wondering if I have you confused for a different condescending genocide apologist. There are so many of them on lemmy.
Please feel free to enlighten us on your solution though.
Condition or cease weapons sales.
us every little fucking thing we want
Imagine supporting genocide so hard that this is what you think of anyone who objects to it in any way at all ever.
Disgusting mindset.
The real world is not nice or perfect.
You take the least worst option. You're choosing between a 2/10 and a 7/10 and then upset that the 7/10 isn't a 10/10. That's never going to happen. I would love for it to, but that's naively idealistic.
I love when liberals actually put things in these terms because it's so much more honest than how they typically talk about it.
A candidate supporting genocide means they don't, "give us every little fucking thing we want, and MORE." A pro-genocide candidate is still a "7/10." Good, yes, drop the pretense and tell the truth that you just don't really give a shit how many foreigners get murdered, instead of trying to act like some bleeding heart. Exposing the contradictions like that is good.
Saying one is better than the other does not mean people don't care about people dying. That's extremely dishonest and arguing in bad faith. Ffs. If I have to cut off my arm or my finger, I don't like either but I can realize the best choice.
I could say that by going after Kamala for this you don't care if Trump wins, you only care about the middle east. But that would be dishonest, so I'm not making absurd leaps in logic, but that seems to be how your approaching this topic. If all you can do is argue in bad faith then there's no room for a conversation.
That's what I'm saying. Usually you lot wring your hands and say, "Oh, we really care so much about the genocide, it's just Trump is so much worse, don't you know." But then you have comments like these that call genocide a "little thing," and that it only docks a couple points off of how you'd rate a politician. So it reveals that all you posturing that you care is fake. You might prefer that it not happen, all else being equal, but it hardly matters to you at all.
A politician supporting genocide is like getting a different flavor of ice cream than what you wanted. This sort of honesty is rare, and it makes a much better starting point then the bullshit y'all are always pushing about how much you care. It's a waste of time trying to argue against premises a person is merely pretending to hold.
"You lot"? What lot am I lol, I'm curious what stereotypical bucket you've decided I'm in.
You then put "little thing" in quotes. I've never once called genocide a little thing, ever. This is more dishonesty. I said it makes her less desirable, that's reality, I expressed that with a 10 point scale. What do you want me to make her and Trump both 0/10, act like they're the same?
But somehow I don't care because I can see that all things considered one candidate is better than the other. You seem to tell me how I feel, who I am, and what I think. And now you're telling me this doesn't even matter to me? How transparent
...
Ok well I stopped reading the rest. Your not even making a point you're just making wild assumptions and telling me who I am. Well I can tell you what I've observed about you. You don't care about facts, reality, or nuance. You're a hyped up activist that has lost the plot all for this crusade. You're willing to let the world burn and attack anyone who doesn't think this is all that matter in the world.
You need to grow up and understand that wars and death happen throughout history. Most people don't like it, and since you can't stop making wild assumptions let me state clearly that I don't like it. But if we drop everything and hyper focus on every single war while letting corrupt politicians who want to stop voting and remove rights at home then it helps nothing. If Trump is in office not only does he not help either, but he causes more harm. The net amount of suffering in the world goes up, and that's what matters. I'm looking at the global stage and you can't seem to expand your mind to see the big picture.
Keep ranting and raving if you want. Tell me who I hate and that I love seeing people die or whatever, I don't care. You're a lost cause.
You then put “little thing” in quotes. I’ve never once called genocide a little thing, ever. This is more dishonesty.
And I'm already voting for Harris. I still get to gripe about genocide, no matter how much it pisses off centrists to hear the blasphemy to the core of their worldview that is the merest suggestion that we shouldn't be supporting genocide.
Sure, and if you make people not vote for her, increasing Trumps chance to win, so be it. I suppose you're ok with that outcome.
I'd rather do whatever I can to get her in office then push for change. If US democracy falls apart with Trump then we have much larger problems than war in the middle east.
Sure, and if you make people not vote for her,
With my spoooooky mind control ray? You just want everyone who doesn't support genocide to shut up.
No, I'm acknowledging that how you discuss it can impact an election. Are you honestly so dense that you don't understand that?
And no, that's not what I want and it's not what I said, but please keep continuing this pattern of telling me how I feel and what I want. It seems you do have a mind reading ray, otherwise these claims would be extremely ignorant.
And no, that’s not what I want and it’s not what I said, but please keep continuing this pattern of telling me how I feel and what I want.
Then maybe give some indication that you're upset about the genocide and not just angry that people don't think it's a good idea for Democrats to support it.
I've said genocide is bad multiple times, what do you want a video of me crying? Jesus. I've said I'm against it, I've even said we need to push for change. You just don't want to hear that, I don't agree with you on every single point so you want to immediately other me and make assumptions about my stance.
You seem to be operating more off emotion than logic...
I’ve said genocide is bad multiple times,
And I've said I'm voting for Harris multiple times. If you don't care and keep ignoring that, why should I extend greater courtesy to you?
I’ve said I’m against it, I’ve even said we need to push for change.
While also saying that objections to genocide are making people vote for Trump.
You seem to be operating more off emotion than logic…
Imagine being emotional when your party is supporting genocide and is openly hostile to any attempt to stop or even slow it. This is monstrous and disgusting and unconscionably immoral. No US politician of any party has any business supporting this, let alone Democrats, the "moral high ground" party.
The lion's share of your vitriol is directed at the critics of genocide, not at its perpetrators or enablers.
And I've said I'm voting for Harris multiple times. If you don't care and keep ignoring that, why should I extend greater courtesy to you?
Because I've never said your not voting for her, simply that your comments could impact other voters. You've said I don't care multiple times when I've said the opposite. You seem more interested in a sick burn than being accurate.
While also saying that objections to genocide are making people vote for Trump.
Never said that once. I never said being against genocide means you're pro Trump. I've even said I'm against it. Holy crap you are dishonest.
Imagine being emotional when your party is supporting genocide and is openly hostile to any attempt to stop or even slow it. This is monstrous and disgusting and unconscionably immoral. No US politician of any party has any business supporting this, let alone Democrats, the "moral high ground" party.
Imagine trying to solve a problem with emotion not logic. That's exactly what you're trying to do.
The lion's share of your vitriol is directed at the critics of genocide, not at its perpetrators or enablers.
Wrong again. I'm trying to prevent genocide being the middle east, you seem to have blinders on.
Point me to the correct candidate please. Oh right, you can't because somehow it's my fault that the two party system took away literally every option you could possibly have. Maybe i should've have voted for the non genocide candidate in my primary. Oh wait my state didn't have one because i didn't need to choose a candidate. That's ok, no one else was running anyway because who the fuck can out raise the incumbents.
Seriously though, you are asking an impossible question and getting angry when you don't get the answer you want. No one wants to vote for genocide. No one wants this to be the situation.
We can be upset with her decisions and policies and still very easily acknowledge that one of the candidates is clearly worse. Trump has outright said Netanyahu should just finish the job. He wouldn't just not resist, he'd actively encourage it. It's like choosing between getting shot with a .22 or a .45 bullet to your leg. Both fucking suck, nobody wants to choose either, but if you're knowledgeable about all the consequences and paying attention, it's not a difficult choice.
You’re right.
And how people, who say they’re pay attention to the election, history and candidates, post the comments in these threads saying Harris is pro genocide and trump isn’t blows my mind.
The trolls are either more subtle of stupider.
A lot of countries had the Jews living in ghettos without the same rights of other citizens. This went on for centuries in Europe. Then along came hitler. He took antisemitism to a new level.
One is the status quote (a vote for Harris)
One is encouraging Netanyahu, the hardliners and the settlers. (A vote for trump)
and trump isn’t
[Citation Needed]
Pretty sure you're a liar who just made that up. Prove me wrong.
You specifically are pro-Uyghur genocide, though, we've all seen that. You are a pro-Trump MAGA, you want the US to collapse so China can gain more influence. You don't much care how many lives that claims.
You literally took it completely out of context. You couldn't possibly have read what it said and came to that conclusion unless you wanted to start shit.
Maybe you misinterpreted what I meant? I'm not asking for evidence that Trump isn't pro-genocide, I'm asking for evidence of posts claiming that Trump isn't pro-genocide.
What "context" am I missing here exactly, or what "conclusion" have I come to that I couldn't have come to unless I was trying to start shit? Seems like my interpretation is extremely straightforward, the person claimed that there are posters saying that Trump isn't pro-genocide, despite the conspicuous absence of any such comments in this thread, or linked to in their comment. So, they made it up, and are lying.
It's not even a choice imo, there's one electable candidate and one unelectable and I'm horrified that I've got justify it to a whatabout. I was simply saying that i acknowledge this whatabout is genocide. I wish i had better choices in my elections. Constantly bringing up genocide when right now at this very moment there's not a candidate who is going to win that's shown any inkling of stopping said genocide is contributing nothing to the conversation. That's a conversation about genocide that should 100% involve American politics. This needs to be a conversation about American politics that doesn't involve genocide because at this moment right now it adds zero value.
TLDR: you said it much better than i did lol
The way Harris refuses to court her own voting base never ceases to disturb me
Ftfy.
Its not on voters. Voters will do what they will do. Its on politicians who we vote for. Also I will be voting for Harris and also protesting at every event where I can to demand this apartheid and genocide to end.
Stop making Israel an election issue and worry about your own damn country. If you want to vote on Israel's future move there, become a citizen and vote.
But you live in the u.s, put down your world police badge and vote on your country's matters.
If not a single one of your leaders and candidates supports an issue, IT'S NOT AN ELECTION ISSUE.
America funding Genocide isn't an issue for you? Your moral compass works differently to mine
America funding Genocide isn’t an issue for you?
It is. It's why they're so adamant about silence.
Cool we'll just go ahead with Boycott, Divest, and Sanction then right? After all this is our country and we can decide where our tax dollars go.
Right?
The problem is that there are candidates that do support ending the genocide, like Claudia De La Cruz. The issue is that the US is a dictatorship that cannot be saved electorally, we can't simply vote in good candidates like Claudia De La Cruz, because the State is scientifically engineered to prevent positive change for the Working Class and maximize profits for the Bourgeoisie.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL BE USED TO MURDER CHILDREN AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT NOW GO VOTE FOR THE GENOCIDER LIKE A GOOD CITIZEN
Funny, suddenly you all care that your money is being used to kill people. You cheered it when it was my people. Now you morally grandstand and wonder why some of us think you Americans are hypocrites
You cheered it when it was my people
Yeah dude, we all got around a fire and jerked eachother off about it
Is everyone from your country exactly alike in political opinion? No? Neither are americans. I have been actively anti-war and anti-bombing since I've been an adult why are you making such bold assumptions based on 1 post I made which was ANTI-WAR ANTI-US EMPIRE ANTI-BOMBING
"Grandpa, what did you do when the genocides were happening?"
"Told people off for not being enthusiastic about voting for pro-genocide candidates"
"I told them to vote for the candidate that would finish the job, sweetheart"
"No, I meant the one in Sudan"
"There was one in Sudan? Well, I didn't do anything. You see, there were no Democrats to blame"
We aren't selling weapons for the genocide in Sudan.
Quit whatabouting in support of genocide.
So you're not actually against genocide. You just want someone else to supply the weapons. If China would just take over IDF arms shipments, then you could ignore Gaza too.
What the heck is this argument? "Well SOMEONE is going to supply the weapons for mass slaughter, might as well be us!"
The argument is: it makes no difference who supplies the weapons. The only thing that matters is who exerts the most pressure to get a ceasefire.
My government isn't spending my tax money to make me an accessory to the genocide in Sudan. You're just happy that your tax money is being used for a cause you support: the genocide in Gaza.
Well, as long as your hands are clean then you have nothing to worry about.
Because the most important thing you need in Gaza is that you can look yourself in your mirror each day and that you can feel good about yourself.
One of us certainly does. You're fucking proud to be an accessory to genocide and want anyone who isn't to shut up.
I don't think the person you responded to ever mention being happy about genocide. Why would you lie about that?
So they expect everyone else to be happy about genocide while being unhappy about it themselves? That makes no sense.
I trust that you'll also be calling all the people who accuse anyone who is even slightly unhappy about genocide of being trump supporters liars too, right?
When did the person you responded to say that anyone is or is expected to be happy about genocide?
I trust that you’ll also be calling all the people who accuse anyone who is even slightly unhappy about genocide of being trump supporters liars too, right?
So the answer to this is "fuck no, I only call people who don't support genocide liars."
No, I'm just calling you a liar. You are literally saying that person you're referring to said they are happy about genocide, and that others should be happy about genocide, which never happened. You are making up the words that were never said to emotionally support your view.
But I will also say, if you think that not voting for Harris in November will in any will help end the genocide, you're grossly mistaken, and such an action would be in direct support of Trump's presidential election. Interpret those facts how you will.
But I will also say, if you think that not voting for Harris in November will in any will help end the genocide
I'm still voting for Harris, despite the constant accusations of pro-genocide centrists to the contrary.
The number of pro-genocide centrists who accuse anyone who doesn't love genocide as much as they do of being trumpers will never surprise me.
Maybe they just have a tendency to confuse the painfully obvious consequences of not voting or voting against Harris for your actual intended goals. Trump is clearly going to be worse for Palestinians since he outright said Netanyahu should just finish the job, so if you're on a clear and obvious path to getting someone even worse elected, we can't help but wonder if you don't actually care about the Palestinians because for all the bitching and moaning about Harris's stance, you're on your way to making the situation objectively worse.
I'm voting for Harris and have never, I want to stress this, absolutely fucking NEVER suggested doing otherwise.
You will of course completely ignore this because I dared to say that genocide isn't the only thing in this world that gives life meaning.
I'll admit I was mistaken given your comment was sandwiched between two people suggesting otherwise and given your suggestion that anyone tired of listening to those people try to discourage voting for Harris is pro-genocide. You may not be one of them, but you walk a very similar walk here, so I wouldn't be so surprised by the confusion.
Consider for a moment that some of the others that you've written off might not be trying to discourage people from voting for Harris but might actually be upset about genocide.
You do understand that there are people in the world who genuinely don't like genocide without ulterior motives, right? That it's actually possible to find genocide objectionable?
Because it sure fucking seems like centrists on lemmy don't want to hear anything that isn't glowing praise in the face of the news that Harris will continue supporting genocide to the same degree that Biden has.
Dude this all started because top comment knew this post was gonna be full of people discouraging voting for Harris, and then you jumped in and accused people of being pro-genocide for it. This is what I mean when I said you walk a similar walk. Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
None of us like genocide. We're just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who's objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be. I, at least, don't care if some posts about her are negative, but I'm real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
And anyone who criticizes any Democrat's support for genocide gets a fucking earful of "you want Trump to win" accusations.
None of us like genocide.
Ha. I wish we could link to specific modlog entries.
We’re just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who’s objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be.
Objectively less bad. Let's not pretend she's good on the topic in any way.
I’m real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
And I'm tired of the constant insinuations that anyone who thinks that no Democrat should be supporting genocide must be a trumper.
Neither fucking party should be supporting genocide. This isn't perfect-world-everyone-gets-a-pony-and-a-blowjob-yes-even-the-women purity. This is the absolute bare minimum of what should be acceptable. It's the most disgusting shit ever to see the "good" party willing to be complicit in the eradication of a people, and to be met with gross hostility from your own party for daring to call it wrong.
I wonder who the next entry on Netanyahu's "then they came for" list is. Because one thing about genocide, it doesn't end unless it's stopped. It doesn't end when it runs out of victims in one group. The genocidal stay in power by lying to the people that if they just get rid of those that they designate to be the cause of all the world's ills, all their problems will go away. So when the victims are dead and the problems remain, they don't admit they're wrong; they're politicians, after all. They just find a new scapegoat for all the world's ills and continue as before. Ultimately everyone's on that list except the genocidal maniac at the top.
Calling her "pro-genocide" might very much suggest to people that they should not vote for her.
Point of fact, I called centrists pro-genocide, not necessarily Harris. Though it's not like calling Harris pro-genocide would make any centrist less likely to vote for her.
I feel like people are being very liberal with this "pro-genocide" term.
Not nearly as liberal as centrists have been for the past months with the "you don't support genocide so you must be voting for trump" accusation. Which you don't have a problem with.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You're not interested in an honest conversation huh?
I find it interesting that people like you, who are "anti-genocide" can't help themselves from telling others how they think and feel. Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You’re not interested in an honest conversation huh?
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you're certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty, I don't know what to tell you, and it's not like you would believe it anyway since it comes from someone who has voiced opposition to genocide without immediately following it with "but."
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you're certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
Ok, so in the absence of you knowing my stance you feel comfortable making assumptions. Seems like a logical path to truth. Ffs...
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty
You toss all nuance out the window to build this straw man. Genocide isn't the only thing in the world happening. And like I said in my last comment the "but" is because context exists. We could enslave them all and that would fix the genocide. I can only assume you're in favor of that because it would stop genocide, no buts.
Ok, so in the absence of you knowing my stance you feel comfortable making assumptions.
You are comfortable saying that I called Harris pro-genocide, which I did not do. I said that centrists on lemmy are pro-genocide, which you took to mean that Harris is pro-genocide.
Genocide isn’t the only thing in the world happening
Both the article and the thread are about genocide.
And like I said in my last comment the “but” is because context exists. We could enslave them all and that would fix the genocide. I can only assume you’re in favor of that because it would stop genocide, no buts.
Wouldn't be the only thing you've assumed about me that wasn't true.
She is arming a genocide and refuses to stop. How is that not pro genocide? If accurately describing her stance drives people away maybe she should change it
Ffs people are so naive.
And if she didn't change it, you don't vote for her and Trump wins how do you think that plays out? You think he really cares and will save more lives than Kamala.
This is picking the least worst option and people are saying not to vote for her because of this. While Trump is saying if he gets in people will not have to vote again. Get the best choice in then protest the issue, but if Trump gets in it's much worse.
Why can't you just let people be angry about a genocide and the people that are responsible for it. We can't help that speaking the truth about this enormous atrocity hurts the less evil candidate we have to deal with the fact that our government is supplying the means to murder children on a daily basis grow a fucking heart
Because addressing the problem the wrong way can make it worse. I don't want it to be worse. Demonizing Harris and given Trump a better chance hurts everyone, Gaza included. I'm trying to step back and look at the big picture and far reaching implications.
Your cold and unsympathetic demeanor has convinced me not to vote for kamala
Ok
You're bitching about shit that you refuse to try to change. You've already admitted that you haven't done anything to change the course.
If you don’t tell anyone in power that you dislike a policy then no one will know you don’t like it. Most of you don’t want to tell anyone in power how you feel, so it’s just text in the wind.
You only have yourself to blame.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about
I'm not surprised.
Saying they are "pro-genocide" is beyond hyperbolic.
These type of extreme, over the top comments hurt way more than help.
These type of extreme, over the top comments hurt way more than help.
Hurt what? The tender fee-fee's of pro-genocide centrists? If they don't want to be called pro-genocide, they should stop supporting genocide. If they don't want to be called pro-genocide, they should stand firm on literally any other issue. But they fucking don't. Everything else is up for negotiation. Everything else is fertile ground for capitulation. Not genocide. That's the only thing centrists won't budge on.
Ugh, your just as bad as Trump and MAGA with these childish comments. Please at least try to have an adult conversation, if your "fee-fees" can manage.
Being "pro-genocide" means they like and want it. That's not the reality, and if you think she really loves genocide you're a lost cause.
And I agree we should fight it, we should stop genocide but right now, which side do you think it's more open to thatb conversation? Because it's not the side that wants to removing voting. So I say get her in to office at all costs to protect democracy and then work to fix that.
I'm just not ready to let the country burn to the ground over this and put us in a situation where we no longer even have a voice to speak out against it. People don't seem to understand what's at risk here in the US and the longer term effects it would have. Was in the middle east and Eastern Europe could become the norm.
And I agree we should fight it, we should stop genocide but
there's always a but.
right now, which side do you think it’s more open to thatb conversation?
From what I've seen on lemmy, no side is. Of course Republicans are all-in on genocide. Centrist Democrats are openly hostile to the very idea of abandoning support for genocide. Which is why I say that they're pro-genocide. You clearly have more of a problem with that than you do with the genocide itself. Know how I can tell? there's no "but" to negate everything before it.
So I say get her in to office at all costs to protect democracy and then work to fix that.
I'm already voting for her.
I’m just not ready to let the country burn to the ground over this
How many times do you intend to ignore that I'm voting for Harris?
there's always a but.
Yes because nuance exists. We could wipe out life on the entire planet, that would stop genocide. I'm guessing you're in favor of that then, any means justifys the end huh? Or we could maybe take over and enslave both sides, that could stop genocide. You might say "yah but we just turned them into slaves", to which I would say "there's always a but."
From what I've seen on lemmy, no side is.
This is pure dishonesty. In our convo alone I've said it's bad and we should work to stop it.
I'm already voting for her.
While painting her as a horrible person that no and vote should vote for. Unless your saying people should vote for a pro-genocide candidate now.
How many times do you intend to ignore that I'm voting for Harris?
I dunno, when are you going to acknowledge that while you're still voting for her you can actively turn votes away from her?
I dunno, when are you going to acknowledge that while you’re still voting for her you can actively turn votes away from her?
When you acknowledge that "pro-genocide" is a selling point on lemmy.
damn right
Harris could easily at this point make her own platform to run on that includes what the voters are asking for
her refusal to acknowledge the voters' concerns is very telling
Sorry, but for many of us, genocide is our red line.
Decided to look it up, and the "we're doing too much for Israel" is only at 40% of Dems, higher than GOPs 30% but it isn't a majority even of her own party. And it's an even fewer willing to say no weapons or call it a genecide. It's certainly more people than it was a few months ago, but if you want the Dems to take a stronger stance, you'll need to push those poll numbers farther because her messaging is reflecting that.
Now that's not to say they're right, Americans in general aren't exactly the brightest or most informed bunch (see our response to 9/11, ugh), but representative government is going to reflect public sentiment. If you want to fight for Gaza, find ways to convince your neighbors or family members. If 60% called for a ban on weapons sales, you better believe it'll be reflected in the platform.
Can you link that poll please? I’ve seen it as well, but can’t find it again.
I’m pretty sure you’re misrepresenting it, one of the options was “uncertain” at around 35%. “doing too much” was the predominant view.
This is akin to saying “only 30% of Americans voted for Joe Biden and he somehow still won” neglecting to mention that you’re including non voters.
Ok, Google is a bit of a dumpster fire, but here's a few things retracing my steps:
This is two days ago, had to tell Google to look for recent. It's not what I'm citing but it echoes it. People aren't thrilled with CNN, but it's not the only source if you do the time limited search yourself.
If I didn't have two kids driving me crazy past their bedtime I'd search out more but the whole ordeal reeks of false consensus bias. Most people want to believe they're in the majority. But if it makes people feel better, the anti war minority is probably correct (and my guess is the real majority is just ignorance or indifference).
It is a good read, specifically "seven in 10 Democrats (68%) and more than half of Independents (54%) support restricting military aid to Israel".
Well we broke 60%, I'm waiting
We? You're including yourself among people who want to restrict military aid to Israel?
Why do you want Trump to win?
We as in the US. Because the comment was made "If 60% called for a ban on weapons sales, you better believe it'll be reflected in the platform."
What is with people like you making wild leaps in bad faith.
I was quoting the standard centrist line about anyone who has objections to genocide. I can't imagine why you hadn't encountered it before.
Ah maybe that's just me, I don't like to push stereotypes and make sweeping assumptions lol
Tell me again about how I'm forcing people to vote for trump by saying that Democrats have no business supporting genocide.
Because you're only attacking Dems for supporting it while ignoring how Reps are reacting to it. Only attacking one side very much seems like you are favoring the other.
Because you’re only attacking Dems for supporting it
Article's about a Democrat supporting it. You're only attacking Dems who oppose it.
US support for genocide, regardless of the country of origin. Is going to end badly. Trump supports Russia, The dems support Israel. No matter who you pick, some defenseless group of people is going to pay the price for your vote.
Atrocious.
Trump has said multiple times he has unwavering support of Israel and would give them even more weapons. Harris might be pushing the status quo which sucks but Trump would do much worse. I mean fuck Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israel's claim to the Golan Heights. Trump already dunped a shit ton of fuel on the fire of war down there. Saying the two of them are both the same is some bullshit false equivalency crap. Get educated on a topic before you decide to barf out stupid comments.
The US is an oligarchy in everything but name. The average voter doesn't want this policy, but that's not what matters for Harris. That's not what matters in an oligarchy.
What matters is the few with means, not most.
The numbers I have seen state that about 60% of Americans support Israel, with 25% unsure which side they support in the conflict.
60 percent support it's existence. Support for them blowing up Gaza is far lower. Conflating the two is a common Israeli propaganda theme. Even to declaring that Hamas would genocide them if they didn't do this.
Sure, but this backfires in the current political hedgemony.
She does as she's told
It's going to come with a cost.
It's already come with a cost.
She's taken AIPAC money, she's drank the koolaid. She can't go back now. Most of them have, we saw what happened to most of those who didn't. Our politicians are all bought and paid for, dont ever forget that and let's get rid of FPTP so we the people can end this corruption. And if that doesnt work, well, you'll find me ravenous outside of Citizens United.
Edit: go ahead and downvote but at least look with your fucken eyeballs. AIPAC didn't blow hundreds of millions on our elections because they dont matter. Theres a purpose there.
Its also that as Vice President she's a member of the United States Cabinet and United States National Security Council. Who do you think has been making the policy in Bidens administration?
Anyone that convinced themselves she would 180 on her own national security decisions has been delusional.
She was never going to flip. This isn't about her flipping. Its about the fact nearly all of our leadership will support Gaza being flattened, and the Palestinians being eradicated.
Write to and call your representative. That's how politicians know you're upset.
Has anyone here done either of those things?
My rep is a maga chud, thanks to the party pulling funding from her opponent because they would rather have a maga chud than a progressive in any given seat.
So your answer is no then? Representatives don't get as much contact as you think. Apply pressure wherever and whenever you can, even if that legislator does nothing in the years to come, every person applying pressure moves the needle. Doing nothing does nothing. Legislators like to keep their jobs and will suddenly have a change of heart if they feel their job is threatened. That takes hundreds of people in each district making their dissatisfaction known. Be the change you wish to see.
Parties pull funding when it's clear there is no path to victory, so they can ensure victory elsewhere. That's not them "rather have a maga chud" that's strategic. You would be just as angry if they wasted money on a loss. I've seen your views all over lemmy, whatever narrative says the party did wrong, that's the narrative you'll take. Volunteer for the next candidate that runs, prove to the party that they have support and maybe funding will actually stick around. You're an open book, no action, all anger.
So your answer is no then?
You want me to waste my time telling a MAGA chud to stop supporting genocide?
Well, it's about as likely as convincing a lemmy centrist to stop supporting genocide, and I already try to do that. Gonna call today.
Parties pull funding when it’s clear there is no path to victory, so they can ensure victory elsewhere. That’s not them “rather have a maga chud” that’s strategic.
That would be convincing if they hadn't spent money buying ads for maga candidates during that same election cycle.
That would be convincing if they hadn't spent money buying ads for maga candidates during that same election cycle.
And this is why hope was in that box with all the other curses.
I finally understand what "Vote blue no matter who" means. They're all the same.
k
Narrator: But they didn't understand.
If this bothers you then vote for some candidate and party other than Harris and the dems.
I like PSL.
Why? So that Trump ends up in office and does worse?
No, because the only thing elections track is approval. If genocide is too much for a person to approve of then they need to vote for a different candidate.
Terrible idea. A better plan is vote progressives into congress. The presidency literally doesn’t matter. Congress gets to dictate almost everything the President can do.
I guess if you don’t care who gets in then yeah.
I’m personally past just voting for the “least bad” candidate no matter how that’s determined. It’s candidates I actually want from here on out.
You do that. And if/when Trump wins and gives Netanyahu the ok to turn Palestine into glass then turn it into luxury apartments for violent Americans, and he does, then those people's blood will be on your hands. Remember that.
It’ll be my fault… why?
Will it be because I’m responsible for the choices my government makes? Wouldn’t the blood also be on the hands of the “progressive” voters? The Harris voters?
Because every vote counts, and there are only two possible outcomes.
Buddy, you know why. You can pretend online that you don't understand it, but I know you're smart enough to get it, and deep down, you know that what I'm saying is true.
Either you feel emboldened to say it because it looks like Kamala might win, so therefore you think you can just throw your vote away, or you know exactly what you're doing.
I’m old enough to have been able to vote in the 2000 election. Is the blood from 600 thousand Iraqis on my hands too?
If I were choosing the vote that makes me least responsible for the genocide in Gaza wouldn’t I choose a candidate who opposes it in both word and deed?
If what you said were true and I really was responsible for the actions of my government through my vote, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on getting voting records from diebold or whatever so you could use that information to target your vitriol at the people most responsible for this nations cruel actions?
I don’t think you’ve seriously thought what you’re saying through.
Did you vote for Ralph Nader in Florida? Then yeah, it kind of is.
Gore would have won in Florida if there had been a full recount instead of a partial.
If you really believe that people are responsible for the actions of their governments does that extend to the gore voters in Florida?
If people are responsible for the actions of their governments then what justice should be enacted to right the wrongs they bear responsibility for?
Why can't we just vote for the biggest leftist party with the most ballot access? Ya know, the green party
I will generally not recommend people vote for or support the greens because they represent a directionless triangulation with no vision.
I’ve had the opportunity to vote green in every national election they’ve been in and even chosen them a few times and they’ve always let me down.
It's that kind of attitude that weakens the left. If every leftist were involved with the greens, we could create a truly revolutionary party.
perhaps by changing the party into something entirely different from within. of course that would require a lot of work to overcome 25 years of institutional inertia, let alone a big job of completely changing the party's strategy and operation.
i would even make the argument that the greens aren't left, since they aren't calling for worker control of the means of production and historically that's been the bare minimum to be considered left but using the french seating chart hundreds of years later has its own issues.
Well I don't see nearly as much ballot access from the PSL or any other minor party. Maybe we should make a new party that'll lose popularity to the next one in 5 years. No party will ever be leftist enough for leftists in this country and that pretentious mindset will keep us weak forever.
How does that saying go? “If ballot access were candy and nuts we’d all be eating steak!”
There are absolutely ultras in America but it’s not a position necessary to recognize that the Green Party isn’t leftist. I’d say at the very least the greens can’t be called leftist for the same reason the dubious moniker “progressive” isn’t any marker of the same: their platform is explicitly not left.
They are the leftist party available.
There are other parties that are both more left, more explicitly align with my politics and do not have a dubious history of triangulation.
The greens are not the best available option any more than the democrats are.
That's dumb. If you think the greens are just as bad as the Dems, then your brain is broken. PSL has ballot access in 17 states and they're the only other leftists running a candidate. Green party has more ballot access in 37 states and holds a significantly higher chance of meaning anything. But maybe in another 3 or 4 election cycles the PSL will have the ballot access that the greens do now.
I didn’t say the greens are as bad as the dems, I said they’re not the best available option any more than dems are.
Im not gonna rake you over the coals too much for it, but maybe the language around ballot access and chances isn’t the best way to pull people to your particular electoral construction given it’s the same set of ideas that supporters of the democrats are using against both of us.
They use that argument because it's valid and holds weight. The only other option besides bringing in a third party with ballot access is violent revolution and that was a lot cooler of an idea before drones existed.
propaganda from both parties keep people at the bottom of the juice pitcher unable to breath fresh air and there are too few not drinking the punch to do anything
huge crab effect going on here
like when you go crabbing and put all the crabs in the bucket and the crabs that almost get out get stopped by their peers
It's not cool that Americans are as dumb as crabs in this analogy. If every leftist just got behind the green party we might stand a chance. But everyone wants their own unique ideology represented.
If you think Jill Stein represents any sort of real leftist ideology, I have a number of bridges to offer you.
Did we not watch the same acceptance speech at DNC?
stronger military
harder border and immigration controls
drill baby drill
Those aren't moves to the right. That's just the status quo under Biden/Harris
True, because they are on the right just not as far as gop yet.
I'd be curious on examples.
Edit: Down voted but no examples given. Sad but expected.
This is who she's always been. Find speeches of hers back when she was in California, they're just as right wing as she is right now.
How many thousands of women and children were simply LIVING in their homes when Israel voluntarily and with full knowledge of their civilian presence dropped a 1,000lb JDAM on them to eliminate a singular HAMAS target or two?
Look I'm voting for Harris but I really, really dislike how she goes into explicit detail on the events of October 7th but doesn't go into explicit detail on Palestinians crushed, decapitated, blown in half or to bits by explosives, maimed, shot, and yes sometimes raped by IDF.
This double-standard of evocative imagery is in itself pretty disturbing.
The one that got me was when they justified dropping bombs on civilians to hit tunnel hatches. No evidence Hamas was present, just gotta hit that hatch.
How many thousands of women and children were simply LIVING in their homes when Israel voluntarily and with full knowledge of their civilian presence dropped a 1,000lb JDAM on them to eliminate a singular HAMAS target or two?
Fuck the men that didn't want to die, I guess
Women and children are generally given as examples because they're widely perceived as unambiguously not combatants compared to men by most people.
Nobody's saying "fuck the men that didn't want to die". If someone says "how many women and girls were simply living their lives when they were sexually assaulted" and your immediate and only response is "so what, no one cares about men and boys who were sexually assaulted?", can you see why that's kind of a nonsensical conclusion to make?
Exactly. Pretty obvious because it leaves no low-hanging fruit for an Israeli apologist to say something like, "those men were probably Hamas."
It just makes for a more tight and rhetorically effective argument.
The number of "left" voters in this community that are doing their damnedest to get Trump elected never ceases to disturb me.
Yup. These types of articles and threads are designed to help Trump but muddying the water
Single issue voters. They don't understand wider implications of their actions, however well intended they are.
But brah, it's totally acceptable to overreact when one candidate doesn't give us every little fucking thing we want, and MORE. They better cowtow, or I'm gonna keep being mean in comments because that's useful and productive for reealz.
I'll totally trash their bullshit because I'm not "working for the man", dawg. Kamala is just more bullllshiiiit or whatever stupid thing we people say. Palestine on ma dingdong, and JillStein4Prez ✌️💩💩
Do you genuinely think that people are being petulant or petty or something because they strongly object to their leadership supporting an ongoing genocide? Like this is some unreasonable "pet issue" or something?
Yes, because they are. Let's break it down.
Ergo: anyone who doesn't vote for Harris is a vote for Trump. Like it or not.
It is a dipole. You vote for fascism and some old bitch trying to save his own ass in a clear run towards dictatorship, OR YOU VOTE AGAINST THAT.
Jill Stein and RFK Jr are wasted votes. That's the fucking facts. Get with reality.
And if your sole vote is about Gaza, GUESS WHAT? Everyone else is waiting in line to sell weapons to Israel. You won't solve that issue by voting for fascist bullshit in the US as a revenge vote.
So yeah...I'd call that fucking petulant if you're willing to vote for fascism because you don't get your fucking way. Kick and scream and do whatever you want. It's not going the way you want in either case, so don't take the extra step to "stick it to the man" by helping vote Trump in.
Following this logic: anyone who does not vote for Trump votes for Harris.
So a vote for third party is a vote for Harris?
No.
It's saying if you don't vote for the best chance to stop the threat to democracy (Trump) then you are, on some level, ok with what Trump will do.
Same applies the other way. If you think she's horrible for some reason but don't vote for Trump (the candidate with the best chance to beat her), then you're willing to accept her agenda.
Apparently you don't get logic. You're definitely a Stein voter.
I applied logic consistently. I see that is not appreciated here.
Is supporting a genocide fascist? If I were trying to differentiate myself from a fascist opponent, I might simply stop supporting the genocide. Would you go to war if drafted? If you don't go, someone else will. That person might shoot children in the stomach, whereas you would more compassionately aim for the head.
I literally ran down a thread a few days ago asking for comment attackers to justify dropping Israel as an ally. Nobody came at me with a viable plan aside from "Uhhhh, just stop".
That's not how it works.
Please feel free to enlighten us on your solution though.
Is that the one where one side of the argument kept ignoring anything other than mindless unconditional support for genocide and only genocide and kept dropping little one-word dismissals like "next" and "BYE"?
Because the thread got nuked and I'm wondering if I have you confused for a different condescending genocide apologist. There are so many of them on lemmy.
Condition or cease weapons sales.
Imagine supporting genocide so hard that this is what you think of anyone who objects to it in any way at all ever.
Disgusting mindset.
The real world is not nice or perfect.
You take the least worst option. You're choosing between a 2/10 and a 7/10 and then upset that the 7/10 isn't a 10/10. That's never going to happen. I would love for it to, but that's naively idealistic.
I love when liberals actually put things in these terms because it's so much more honest than how they typically talk about it.
A candidate supporting genocide means they don't, "give us every little fucking thing we want, and MORE." A pro-genocide candidate is still a "7/10." Good, yes, drop the pretense and tell the truth that you just don't really give a shit how many foreigners get murdered, instead of trying to act like some bleeding heart. Exposing the contradictions like that is good.
Saying one is better than the other does not mean people don't care about people dying. That's extremely dishonest and arguing in bad faith. Ffs. If I have to cut off my arm or my finger, I don't like either but I can realize the best choice.
I could say that by going after Kamala for this you don't care if Trump wins, you only care about the middle east. But that would be dishonest, so I'm not making absurd leaps in logic, but that seems to be how your approaching this topic. If all you can do is argue in bad faith then there's no room for a conversation.
That's what I'm saying. Usually you lot wring your hands and say, "Oh, we really care so much about the genocide, it's just Trump is so much worse, don't you know." But then you have comments like these that call genocide a "little thing," and that it only docks a couple points off of how you'd rate a politician. So it reveals that all you posturing that you care is fake. You might prefer that it not happen, all else being equal, but it hardly matters to you at all.
A politician supporting genocide is like getting a different flavor of ice cream than what you wanted. This sort of honesty is rare, and it makes a much better starting point then the bullshit y'all are always pushing about how much you care. It's a waste of time trying to argue against premises a person is merely pretending to hold.
"You lot"? What lot am I lol, I'm curious what stereotypical bucket you've decided I'm in.
You then put "little thing" in quotes. I've never once called genocide a little thing, ever. This is more dishonesty. I said it makes her less desirable, that's reality, I expressed that with a 10 point scale. What do you want me to make her and Trump both 0/10, act like they're the same?
But somehow I don't care because I can see that all things considered one candidate is better than the other. You seem to tell me how I feel, who I am, and what I think. And now you're telling me this doesn't even matter to me? How transparent ...
Ok well I stopped reading the rest. Your not even making a point you're just making wild assumptions and telling me who I am. Well I can tell you what I've observed about you. You don't care about facts, reality, or nuance. You're a hyped up activist that has lost the plot all for this crusade. You're willing to let the world burn and attack anyone who doesn't think this is all that matter in the world.
You need to grow up and understand that wars and death happen throughout history. Most people don't like it, and since you can't stop making wild assumptions let me state clearly that I don't like it. But if we drop everything and hyper focus on every single war while letting corrupt politicians who want to stop voting and remove rights at home then it helps nothing. If Trump is in office not only does he not help either, but he causes more harm. The net amount of suffering in the world goes up, and that's what matters. I'm looking at the global stage and you can't seem to expand your mind to see the big picture.
Keep ranting and raving if you want. Tell me who I hate and that I love seeing people die or whatever, I don't care. You're a lost cause.
The comment you're defending did. Calling it dishonesty is, ironically dishonesty.
And I'm already voting for Harris. I still get to gripe about genocide, no matter how much it pisses off centrists to hear the blasphemy to the core of their worldview that is the merest suggestion that we shouldn't be supporting genocide.
Sure, and if you make people not vote for her, increasing Trumps chance to win, so be it. I suppose you're ok with that outcome.
I'd rather do whatever I can to get her in office then push for change. If US democracy falls apart with Trump then we have much larger problems than war in the middle east.
With my spoooooky mind control ray? You just want everyone who doesn't support genocide to shut up.
No, I'm acknowledging that how you discuss it can impact an election. Are you honestly so dense that you don't understand that?
And no, that's not what I want and it's not what I said, but please keep continuing this pattern of telling me how I feel and what I want. It seems you do have a mind reading ray, otherwise these claims would be extremely ignorant.
Then maybe give some indication that you're upset about the genocide and not just angry that people don't think it's a good idea for Democrats to support it.
I've said genocide is bad multiple times, what do you want a video of me crying? Jesus. I've said I'm against it, I've even said we need to push for change. You just don't want to hear that, I don't agree with you on every single point so you want to immediately other me and make assumptions about my stance.
You seem to be operating more off emotion than logic...
And I've said I'm voting for Harris multiple times. If you don't care and keep ignoring that, why should I extend greater courtesy to you?
While also saying that objections to genocide are making people vote for Trump.
Imagine being emotional when your party is supporting genocide and is openly hostile to any attempt to stop or even slow it. This is monstrous and disgusting and unconscionably immoral. No US politician of any party has any business supporting this, let alone Democrats, the "moral high ground" party.
The lion's share of your vitriol is directed at the critics of genocide, not at its perpetrators or enablers.
Because I've never said your not voting for her, simply that your comments could impact other voters. You've said I don't care multiple times when I've said the opposite. You seem more interested in a sick burn than being accurate.
Never said that once. I never said being against genocide means you're pro Trump. I've even said I'm against it. Holy crap you are dishonest.
Imagine trying to solve a problem with emotion not logic. That's exactly what you're trying to do.
Wrong again. I'm trying to prevent genocide being the middle east, you seem to have blinders on.
Point me to the correct candidate please. Oh right, you can't because somehow it's my fault that the two party system took away literally every option you could possibly have. Maybe i should've have voted for the non genocide candidate in my primary. Oh wait my state didn't have one because i didn't need to choose a candidate. That's ok, no one else was running anyway because who the fuck can out raise the incumbents.
Seriously though, you are asking an impossible question and getting angry when you don't get the answer you want. No one wants to vote for genocide. No one wants this to be the situation.
We can be upset with her decisions and policies and still very easily acknowledge that one of the candidates is clearly worse. Trump has outright said Netanyahu should just finish the job. He wouldn't just not resist, he'd actively encourage it. It's like choosing between getting shot with a .22 or a .45 bullet to your leg. Both fucking suck, nobody wants to choose either, but if you're knowledgeable about all the consequences and paying attention, it's not a difficult choice.
You’re right. And how people, who say they’re pay attention to the election, history and candidates, post the comments in these threads saying Harris is pro genocide and trump isn’t blows my mind. The trolls are either more subtle of stupider.
A lot of countries had the Jews living in ghettos without the same rights of other citizens. This went on for centuries in Europe. Then along came hitler. He took antisemitism to a new level.
One is the status quote (a vote for Harris) One is encouraging Netanyahu, the hardliners and the settlers. (A vote for trump)
[Citation Needed]
Pretty sure you're a liar who just made that up. Prove me wrong.
You specifically are pro-Uyghur genocide, though, we've all seen that. You are a pro-Trump MAGA, you want the US to collapse so China can gain more influence. You don't much care how many lives that claims.
You literally took it completely out of context. You couldn't possibly have read what it said and came to that conclusion unless you wanted to start shit.
Maybe you misinterpreted what I meant? I'm not asking for evidence that Trump isn't pro-genocide, I'm asking for evidence of posts claiming that Trump isn't pro-genocide.
What "context" am I missing here exactly, or what "conclusion" have I come to that I couldn't have come to unless I was trying to start shit? Seems like my interpretation is extremely straightforward, the person claimed that there are posters saying that Trump isn't pro-genocide, despite the conspicuous absence of any such comments in this thread, or linked to in their comment. So, they made it up, and are lying.
It's not even a choice imo, there's one electable candidate and one unelectable and I'm horrified that I've got justify it to a whatabout. I was simply saying that i acknowledge this whatabout is genocide. I wish i had better choices in my elections. Constantly bringing up genocide when right now at this very moment there's not a candidate who is going to win that's shown any inkling of stopping said genocide is contributing nothing to the conversation. That's a conversation about genocide that should 100% involve American politics. This needs to be a conversation about American politics that doesn't involve genocide because at this moment right now it adds zero value.
TLDR: you said it much better than i did lol
The way Harris refuses to court her own voting base never ceases to disturb me
Ftfy.
Its not on voters. Voters will do what they will do. Its on politicians who we vote for. Also I will be voting for Harris and also protesting at every event where I can to demand this apartheid and genocide to end.
Stop making Israel an election issue and worry about your own damn country. If you want to vote on Israel's future move there, become a citizen and vote. But you live in the u.s, put down your world police badge and vote on your country's matters. If not a single one of your leaders and candidates supports an issue, IT'S NOT AN ELECTION ISSUE.
America funding Genocide isn't an issue for you? Your moral compass works differently to mine
It is. It's why they're so adamant about silence.
Cool we'll just go ahead with Boycott, Divest, and Sanction then right? After all this is our country and we can decide where our tax dollars go.
Right?
The problem is that there are candidates that do support ending the genocide, like Claudia De La Cruz. The issue is that the US is a dictatorship that cannot be saved electorally, we can't simply vote in good candidates like Claudia De La Cruz, because the State is scientifically engineered to prevent positive change for the Working Class and maximize profits for the Bourgeoisie.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL BE USED TO MURDER CHILDREN AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT NOW GO VOTE FOR THE GENOCIDER LIKE A GOOD CITIZEN
Funny, suddenly you all care that your money is being used to kill people. You cheered it when it was my people. Now you morally grandstand and wonder why some of us think you Americans are hypocrites
Yeah dude, we all got around a fire and jerked eachother off about it
Is everyone from your country exactly alike in political opinion? No? Neither are americans. I have been actively anti-war and anti-bombing since I've been an adult why are you making such bold assumptions based on 1 post I made which was ANTI-WAR ANTI-US EMPIRE ANTI-BOMBING
"Grandpa, what did you do when the genocides were happening?"
"Told people off for not being enthusiastic about voting for pro-genocide candidates"
"I told them to vote for the candidate that would finish the job, sweetheart"
"No, I meant the one in Sudan"
"There was one in Sudan? Well, I didn't do anything. You see, there were no Democrats to blame"
We aren't selling weapons for the genocide in Sudan.
Quit whatabouting in support of genocide.
So you're not actually against genocide. You just want someone else to supply the weapons. If China would just take over IDF arms shipments, then you could ignore Gaza too.
What the heck is this argument? "Well SOMEONE is going to supply the weapons for mass slaughter, might as well be us!"
The argument is: it makes no difference who supplies the weapons. The only thing that matters is who exerts the most pressure to get a ceasefire.
My government isn't spending my tax money to make me an accessory to the genocide in Sudan. You're just happy that your tax money is being used for a cause you support: the genocide in Gaza.
Well, as long as your hands are clean then you have nothing to worry about.
Because the most important thing you need in Gaza is that you can look yourself in your mirror each day and that you can feel good about yourself.
One of us certainly does. You're fucking proud to be an accessory to genocide and want anyone who isn't to shut up.
I don't think the person you responded to ever mention being happy about genocide. Why would you lie about that?
So they expect everyone else to be happy about genocide while being unhappy about it themselves? That makes no sense.
I trust that you'll also be calling all the people who accuse anyone who is even slightly unhappy about genocide of being trump supporters liars too, right?
When did the person you responded to say that anyone is or is expected to be happy about genocide?
So the answer to this is "fuck no, I only call people who don't support genocide liars."
No, I'm just calling you a liar. You are literally saying that person you're referring to said they are happy about genocide, and that others should be happy about genocide, which never happened. You are making up the words that were never said to emotionally support your view.
But I will also say, if you think that not voting for Harris in November will in any will help end the genocide, you're grossly mistaken, and such an action would be in direct support of Trump's presidential election. Interpret those facts how you will.
I'm still voting for Harris, despite the constant accusations of pro-genocide centrists to the contrary.
The number of pro-genocide centrists who accuse anyone who doesn't love genocide as much as they do of being trumpers will never surprise me.
Maybe they just have a tendency to confuse the painfully obvious consequences of not voting or voting against Harris for your actual intended goals. Trump is clearly going to be worse for Palestinians since he outright said Netanyahu should just finish the job, so if you're on a clear and obvious path to getting someone even worse elected, we can't help but wonder if you don't actually care about the Palestinians because for all the bitching and moaning about Harris's stance, you're on your way to making the situation objectively worse.
I'm voting for Harris and have never, I want to stress this, absolutely fucking NEVER suggested doing otherwise.
You will of course completely ignore this because I dared to say that genocide isn't the only thing in this world that gives life meaning.
I'll admit I was mistaken given your comment was sandwiched between two people suggesting otherwise and given your suggestion that anyone tired of listening to those people try to discourage voting for Harris is pro-genocide. You may not be one of them, but you walk a very similar walk here, so I wouldn't be so surprised by the confusion.
Consider for a moment that some of the others that you've written off might not be trying to discourage people from voting for Harris but might actually be upset about genocide.
You do understand that there are people in the world who genuinely don't like genocide without ulterior motives, right? That it's actually possible to find genocide objectionable?
Because it sure fucking seems like centrists on lemmy don't want to hear anything that isn't glowing praise in the face of the news that Harris will continue supporting genocide to the same degree that Biden has.
Dude this all started because top comment knew this post was gonna be full of people discouraging voting for Harris, and then you jumped in and accused people of being pro-genocide for it. This is what I mean when I said you walk a similar walk. Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
None of us like genocide. We're just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who's objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be. I, at least, don't care if some posts about her are negative, but I'm real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
And anyone who criticizes any Democrat's support for genocide gets a fucking earful of "you want Trump to win" accusations.
Ha. I wish we could link to specific modlog entries.
Objectively less bad. Let's not pretend she's good on the topic in any way.
And I'm tired of the constant insinuations that anyone who thinks that no Democrat should be supporting genocide must be a trumper.
Neither fucking party should be supporting genocide. This isn't perfect-world-everyone-gets-a-pony-and-a-blowjob-yes-even-the-women purity. This is the absolute bare minimum of what should be acceptable. It's the most disgusting shit ever to see the "good" party willing to be complicit in the eradication of a people, and to be met with gross hostility from your own party for daring to call it wrong.
I wonder who the next entry on Netanyahu's "then they came for" list is. Because one thing about genocide, it doesn't end unless it's stopped. It doesn't end when it runs out of victims in one group. The genocidal stay in power by lying to the people that if they just get rid of those that they designate to be the cause of all the world's ills, all their problems will go away. So when the victims are dead and the problems remain, they don't admit they're wrong; they're politicians, after all. They just find a new scapegoat for all the world's ills and continue as before. Ultimately everyone's on that list except the genocidal maniac at the top.
Calling her "pro-genocide" might very much suggest to people that they should not vote for her.
Point of fact, I called centrists pro-genocide, not necessarily Harris. Though it's not like calling Harris pro-genocide would make any centrist less likely to vote for her.
I feel like people are being very liberal with this "pro-genocide" term.
Not nearly as liberal as centrists have been for the past months with the "you don't support genocide so you must be voting for trump" accusation. Which you don't have a problem with.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You're not interested in an honest conversation huh?
I find it interesting that people like you, who are "anti-genocide" can't help themselves from telling others how they think and feel. Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you're certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty, I don't know what to tell you, and it's not like you would believe it anyway since it comes from someone who has voiced opposition to genocide without immediately following it with "but."
Ok, so in the absence of you knowing my stance you feel comfortable making assumptions. Seems like a logical path to truth. Ffs...
You toss all nuance out the window to build this straw man. Genocide isn't the only thing in the world happening. And like I said in my last comment the "but" is because context exists. We could enslave them all and that would fix the genocide. I can only assume you're in favor of that because it would stop genocide, no buts.
You are comfortable saying that I called Harris pro-genocide, which I did not do. I said that centrists on lemmy are pro-genocide, which you took to mean that Harris is pro-genocide.
Both the article and the thread are about genocide.
Wouldn't be the only thing you've assumed about me that wasn't true.
She is arming a genocide and refuses to stop. How is that not pro genocide? If accurately describing her stance drives people away maybe she should change it
Ffs people are so naive.
And if she didn't change it, you don't vote for her and Trump wins how do you think that plays out? You think he really cares and will save more lives than Kamala.
This is picking the least worst option and people are saying not to vote for her because of this. While Trump is saying if he gets in people will not have to vote again. Get the best choice in then protest the issue, but if Trump gets in it's much worse.
Why can't you just let people be angry about a genocide and the people that are responsible for it. We can't help that speaking the truth about this enormous atrocity hurts the less evil candidate we have to deal with the fact that our government is supplying the means to murder children on a daily basis grow a fucking heart
Because addressing the problem the wrong way can make it worse. I don't want it to be worse. Demonizing Harris and given Trump a better chance hurts everyone, Gaza included. I'm trying to step back and look at the big picture and far reaching implications.
Your cold and unsympathetic demeanor has convinced me not to vote for kamala
Ok
You're bitching about shit that you refuse to try to change. You've already admitted that you haven't done anything to change the course.
If you don’t tell anyone in power that you dislike a policy then no one will know you don’t like it. Most of you don’t want to tell anyone in power how you feel, so it’s just text in the wind.
You only have yourself to blame.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about
I'm not surprised.
Saying they are "pro-genocide" is beyond hyperbolic.
These type of extreme, over the top comments hurt way more than help.
Hurt what? The tender fee-fee's of pro-genocide centrists? If they don't want to be called pro-genocide, they should stop supporting genocide. If they don't want to be called pro-genocide, they should stand firm on literally any other issue. But they fucking don't. Everything else is up for negotiation. Everything else is fertile ground for capitulation. Not genocide. That's the only thing centrists won't budge on.
Ugh, your just as bad as Trump and MAGA with these childish comments. Please at least try to have an adult conversation, if your "fee-fees" can manage.
Being "pro-genocide" means they like and want it. That's not the reality, and if you think she really loves genocide you're a lost cause.
And I agree we should fight it, we should stop genocide but right now, which side do you think it's more open to thatb conversation? Because it's not the side that wants to removing voting. So I say get her in to office at all costs to protect democracy and then work to fix that.
I'm just not ready to let the country burn to the ground over this and put us in a situation where we no longer even have a voice to speak out against it. People don't seem to understand what's at risk here in the US and the longer term effects it would have. Was in the middle east and Eastern Europe could become the norm.
there's always a but.
From what I've seen on lemmy, no side is. Of course Republicans are all-in on genocide. Centrist Democrats are openly hostile to the very idea of abandoning support for genocide. Which is why I say that they're pro-genocide. You clearly have more of a problem with that than you do with the genocide itself. Know how I can tell? there's no "but" to negate everything before it.
I'm already voting for her.
How many times do you intend to ignore that I'm voting for Harris?
Yes because nuance exists. We could wipe out life on the entire planet, that would stop genocide. I'm guessing you're in favor of that then, any means justifys the end huh? Or we could maybe take over and enslave both sides, that could stop genocide. You might say "yah but we just turned them into slaves", to which I would say "there's always a but."
This is pure dishonesty. In our convo alone I've said it's bad and we should work to stop it.
While painting her as a horrible person that no and vote should vote for. Unless your saying people should vote for a pro-genocide candidate now.
I dunno, when are you going to acknowledge that while you're still voting for her you can actively turn votes away from her?
When you acknowledge that "pro-genocide" is a selling point on lemmy.
damn right
Harris could easily at this point make her own platform to run on that includes what the voters are asking for
her refusal to acknowledge the voters' concerns is very telling
Sorry, but for many of us, genocide is our red line.
Decided to look it up, and the "we're doing too much for Israel" is only at 40% of Dems, higher than GOPs 30% but it isn't a majority even of her own party. And it's an even fewer willing to say no weapons or call it a genecide. It's certainly more people than it was a few months ago, but if you want the Dems to take a stronger stance, you'll need to push those poll numbers farther because her messaging is reflecting that.
Now that's not to say they're right, Americans in general aren't exactly the brightest or most informed bunch (see our response to 9/11, ugh), but representative government is going to reflect public sentiment. If you want to fight for Gaza, find ways to convince your neighbors or family members. If 60% called for a ban on weapons sales, you better believe it'll be reflected in the platform.
Can you link that poll please? I’ve seen it as well, but can’t find it again.
I’m pretty sure you’re misrepresenting it, one of the options was “uncertain” at around 35%. “doing too much” was the predominant view.
This is akin to saying “only 30% of Americans voted for Joe Biden and he somehow still won” neglecting to mention that you’re including non voters.
Ok, Google is a bit of a dumpster fire, but here's a few things retracing my steps:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-views-divided-us-policy-israel-hamas-war/story?id=109879453
That's in May, but it's a more popular link. That and a thing from Chicago foreign affairs which idk as well so I didn't link it.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/israel-gaza-americans-poll-chicago/index.html
This is two days ago, had to tell Google to look for recent. It's not what I'm citing but it echoes it. People aren't thrilled with CNN, but it's not the only source if you do the time limited search yourself.
If I didn't have two kids driving me crazy past their bedtime I'd search out more but the whole ordeal reeks of false consensus bias. Most people want to believe they're in the majority. But if it makes people feel better, the anti war minority is probably correct (and my guess is the real majority is just ignorance or indifference).
Edit: it's 61% saying US is doing well there. Most of it is "somewhat" so it's not like it's 5/5 stars. The Chicago one actually is a good read and it's what the CNN one is based on I think. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-united-states-playing-positive-role-middle-east
It is a good read, specifically "seven in 10 Democrats (68%) and more than half of Independents (54%) support restricting military aid to Israel".
Well we broke 60%, I'm waiting
We? You're including yourself among people who want to restrict military aid to Israel?
Why do you want Trump to win?
We as in the US. Because the comment was made "If 60% called for a ban on weapons sales, you better believe it'll be reflected in the platform."
What is with people like you making wild leaps in bad faith.
I was quoting the standard centrist line about anyone who has objections to genocide. I can't imagine why you hadn't encountered it before.
Ah maybe that's just me, I don't like to push stereotypes and make sweeping assumptions lol
Tell me again about how I'm forcing people to vote for trump by saying that Democrats have no business supporting genocide.
Because you're only attacking Dems for supporting it while ignoring how Reps are reacting to it. Only attacking one side very much seems like you are favoring the other.
Article's about a Democrat supporting it. You're only attacking Dems who oppose it.
I would support a candidate that is opposed to genocide.
She knows it's about Iran, not Israel and some local border dispute.
Israel committing a genocide is about Iran???
Global politics is complicated, I know it's hard
Genocide isn't complicated. It's a war crime and it's evil
Only a genocide deniers would call this "some local border dispute" at this time.
@JustZ@lemmy.world right now:
US support for genocide, regardless of the country of origin. Is going to end badly. Trump supports Russia, The dems support Israel. No matter who you pick, some defenseless group of people is going to pay the price for your vote. Atrocious.
Trump has said multiple times he has unwavering support of Israel and would give them even more weapons. Harris might be pushing the status quo which sucks but Trump would do much worse. I mean fuck Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israel's claim to the Golan Heights. Trump already dunped a shit ton of fuel on the fire of war down there. Saying the two of them are both the same is some bullshit false equivalency crap. Get educated on a topic before you decide to barf out stupid comments.
Trump supports Russia and Israel, the dems support Israel. If you pick Trump, both groups pay the price. Depending on who you pick one group will pay the price or not, one group will pay the price no matter what; yet for this group (the Palestinians) the degree to which will probably differ, I suspect Trump may be worse given that he avoids supporting a ceasefire at all and tells the Israeli government to finish what they started. People from Palestine state the same: Trump would be worse, but neither choice would support them.
And there it is, colors shown true.
The US is an oligarchy in everything but name. The average voter doesn't want this policy, but that's not what matters for Harris. That's not what matters in an oligarchy.
What matters is the few with means, not most.
The numbers I have seen state that about 60% of Americans support Israel, with 25% unsure which side they support in the conflict.
60 percent support it's existence. Support for them blowing up Gaza is far lower. Conflating the two is a common Israeli propaganda theme. Even to declaring that Hamas would genocide them if they didn't do this.
Sure, but this backfires in the current political hedgemony.
She does as she's told
It's going to come with a cost.
It's already come with a cost.
She's taken AIPAC money, she's drank the koolaid. She can't go back now. Most of them have, we saw what happened to most of those who didn't. Our politicians are all bought and paid for, dont ever forget that and let's get rid of FPTP so we the people can end this corruption. And if that doesnt work, well, you'll find me ravenous outside of Citizens United.
Edit: go ahead and downvote but at least look with your fucken eyeballs. AIPAC didn't blow hundreds of millions on our elections because they dont matter. Theres a purpose there.
Its also that as Vice President she's a member of the United States Cabinet and United States National Security Council. Who do you think has been making the policy in Bidens administration?
Anyone that convinced themselves she would 180 on her own national security decisions has been delusional.
She was never going to flip. This isn't about her flipping. Its about the fact nearly all of our leadership will support Gaza being flattened, and the Palestinians being eradicated.
Write to and call your representative. That's how politicians know you're upset.
Has anyone here done either of those things?
My rep is a maga chud, thanks to the party pulling funding from her opponent because they would rather have a maga chud than a progressive in any given seat.
So your answer is no then? Representatives don't get as much contact as you think. Apply pressure wherever and whenever you can, even if that legislator does nothing in the years to come, every person applying pressure moves the needle. Doing nothing does nothing. Legislators like to keep their jobs and will suddenly have a change of heart if they feel their job is threatened. That takes hundreds of people in each district making their dissatisfaction known. Be the change you wish to see.
Parties pull funding when it's clear there is no path to victory, so they can ensure victory elsewhere. That's not them "rather have a maga chud" that's strategic. You would be just as angry if they wasted money on a loss. I've seen your views all over lemmy, whatever narrative says the party did wrong, that's the narrative you'll take. Volunteer for the next candidate that runs, prove to the party that they have support and maybe funding will actually stick around. You're an open book, no action, all anger.
You want me to waste my time telling a MAGA chud to stop supporting genocide?
Well, it's about as likely as convincing a lemmy centrist to stop supporting genocide, and I already try to do that. Gonna call today.
That would be convincing if they hadn't spent money buying ads for maga candidates during that same election cycle.
I agree, that was an awful strategy. Even if it helps in the short term, it boosts fascism in the long term. It did mostly gain us seats though... https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked
I can't provide the millions in campaign dollars that CUFI and AIPAC give to my reps. Money controls politics and most of the money is pro-genocide
So, no you haven't done anything. Thumbs up.
Have you let your reps know that you are angry about the genocide of Gaza?
Yes I have.
Good. I hope they listen to us instead of the rich donors that they call every day to beg for money but I wouldn't count on it
Yeah, genocide support is a bedrock principle, unlike things she has flipped on, like M4A and banning fracking.
Thats the shit I really hate. Its got me questioning what we're really getting here and once a-fucking-gain I feel like I dont truly have a choice.
The US is an Oligarchy in everything but name, so of course...
::: spoiler Democracy Now - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Democracy Now:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/30/harris\_middle\_east\_gaza\_israel\_palestine ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
And this is why hope was in that box with all the other curses.
I finally understand what "Vote blue no matter who" means. They're all the same.
k
Narrator: But they didn't understand.
If this bothers you then vote for some candidate and party other than Harris and the dems.
I like PSL.
Why? So that Trump ends up in office and does worse?
No, because the only thing elections track is approval. If genocide is too much for a person to approve of then they need to vote for a different candidate.
Terrible idea. A better plan is vote progressives into congress. The presidency literally doesn’t matter. Congress gets to dictate almost everything the President can do.
I guess if you don’t care who gets in then yeah.
I’m personally past just voting for the “least bad” candidate no matter how that’s determined. It’s candidates I actually want from here on out.
You do that. And if/when Trump wins and gives Netanyahu the ok to turn Palestine into glass then turn it into luxury apartments for violent Americans, and he does, then those people's blood will be on your hands. Remember that.
It’ll be my fault… why?
Will it be because I’m responsible for the choices my government makes? Wouldn’t the blood also be on the hands of the “progressive” voters? The Harris voters?
Because every vote counts, and there are only two possible outcomes.
Buddy, you know why. You can pretend online that you don't understand it, but I know you're smart enough to get it, and deep down, you know that what I'm saying is true.
Either you feel emboldened to say it because it looks like Kamala might win, so therefore you think you can just throw your vote away, or you know exactly what you're doing.
I’m old enough to have been able to vote in the 2000 election. Is the blood from 600 thousand Iraqis on my hands too?
If I were choosing the vote that makes me least responsible for the genocide in Gaza wouldn’t I choose a candidate who opposes it in both word and deed?
If what you said were true and I really was responsible for the actions of my government through my vote, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on getting voting records from diebold or whatever so you could use that information to target your vitriol at the people most responsible for this nations cruel actions?
I don’t think you’ve seriously thought what you’re saying through.
Did you vote for Ralph Nader in Florida? Then yeah, it kind of is.
Gore would have won in Florida if there had been a full recount instead of a partial.
If you really believe that people are responsible for the actions of their governments does that extend to the gore voters in Florida?
If people are responsible for the actions of their governments then what justice should be enacted to right the wrongs they bear responsibility for?
Why can't we just vote for the biggest leftist party with the most ballot access? Ya know, the green party
I will generally not recommend people vote for or support the greens because they represent a directionless triangulation with no vision.
I’ve had the opportunity to vote green in every national election they’ve been in and even chosen them a few times and they’ve always let me down.
It's that kind of attitude that weakens the left. If every leftist were involved with the greens, we could create a truly revolutionary party.
perhaps by changing the party into something entirely different from within. of course that would require a lot of work to overcome 25 years of institutional inertia, let alone a big job of completely changing the party's strategy and operation.
i would even make the argument that the greens aren't left, since they aren't calling for worker control of the means of production and historically that's been the bare minimum to be considered left but using the french seating chart hundreds of years later has its own issues.
Well I don't see nearly as much ballot access from the PSL or any other minor party. Maybe we should make a new party that'll lose popularity to the next one in 5 years. No party will ever be leftist enough for leftists in this country and that pretentious mindset will keep us weak forever.
How does that saying go? “If ballot access were candy and nuts we’d all be eating steak!”
There are absolutely ultras in America but it’s not a position necessary to recognize that the Green Party isn’t leftist. I’d say at the very least the greens can’t be called leftist for the same reason the dubious moniker “progressive” isn’t any marker of the same: their platform is explicitly not left.
They are the leftist party available.
There are other parties that are both more left, more explicitly align with my politics and do not have a dubious history of triangulation.
The greens are not the best available option any more than the democrats are.
That's dumb. If you think the greens are just as bad as the Dems, then your brain is broken. PSL has ballot access in 17 states and they're the only other leftists running a candidate. Green party has more ballot access in 37 states and holds a significantly higher chance of meaning anything. But maybe in another 3 or 4 election cycles the PSL will have the ballot access that the greens do now.
I didn’t say the greens are as bad as the dems, I said they’re not the best available option any more than dems are.
Im not gonna rake you over the coals too much for it, but maybe the language around ballot access and chances isn’t the best way to pull people to your particular electoral construction given it’s the same set of ideas that supporters of the democrats are using against both of us.
They use that argument because it's valid and holds weight. The only other option besides bringing in a third party with ballot access is violent revolution and that was a lot cooler of an idea before drones existed.
propaganda from both parties keep people at the bottom of the juice pitcher unable to breath fresh air and there are too few not drinking the punch to do anything
huge crab effect going on here
like when you go crabbing and put all the crabs in the bucket and the crabs that almost get out get stopped by their peers
It's not cool that Americans are as dumb as crabs in this analogy. If every leftist just got behind the green party we might stand a chance. But everyone wants their own unique ideology represented.
If you think Jill Stein represents any sort of real leftist ideology, I have a number of bridges to offer you.
Harris leans to the right more every day
Only if you're a single issue voter
Did we not watch the same acceptance speech at DNC?
Those aren't moves to the right. That's just the status quo under Biden/Harris
True, because they are on the right just not as far as gop yet.
I'd be curious on examples.
Edit: Down voted but no examples given. Sad but expected.
This is who she's always been. Find speeches of hers back when she was in California, they're just as right wing as she is right now.
How many thousands of women and children were simply LIVING in their homes when Israel voluntarily and with full knowledge of their civilian presence dropped a 1,000lb JDAM on them to eliminate a singular HAMAS target or two?
Look I'm voting for Harris but I really, really dislike how she goes into explicit detail on the events of October 7th but doesn't go into explicit detail on Palestinians crushed, decapitated, blown in half or to bits by explosives, maimed, shot, and yes sometimes raped by IDF.
This double-standard of evocative imagery is in itself pretty disturbing.
The one that got me was when they justified dropping bombs on civilians to hit tunnel hatches. No evidence Hamas was present, just gotta hit that hatch.
Fuck the men that didn't want to die, I guess
Women and children are generally given as examples because they're widely perceived as unambiguously not combatants compared to men by most people.
Nobody's saying "fuck the men that didn't want to die". If someone says "how many women and girls were simply living their lives when they were sexually assaulted" and your immediate and only response is "so what, no one cares about men and boys who were sexually assaulted?", can you see why that's kind of a nonsensical conclusion to make?
Exactly. Pretty obvious because it leaves no low-hanging fruit for an Israeli apologist to say something like, "those men were probably Hamas."
It just makes for a more tight and rhetorically effective argument.
Bad faith argument. Be better.