• Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Believe it or not US presidents have had blood on their hands for years. Even seemingly peaceful actions like the withdrawl from Afghanistan get blood everywhere. If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.

    The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.

    • natural_motions@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Ok, you don’t believe in democratic rule and things like our country being complicit in bloodshed and genocide are a foregone conclusion, got it. Blocked.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        “bloodshed and genocide are a foregone conclusion” -things nobody said

        What part of “Its going to be harder than just voting” do you not understand? Stopping violence means putting your life and wellbeing on the line. No amount of online virtue signaling will stop a genocide.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.

          The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.

          You did say that.

          Also, you’re arguing that we should put our life and wellbeing on the line to stop this, while simultaneously arguing that being anything but a party loyalist is inexcusable? That’s insanely absurd.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Trying to vote against genocide in the US is obviously not possible - the US was built on genocide, and is designed to be impossible to stop while its not creating inconvenience for people who can vote here. The entire system from the ground up is designed not to be influenced to enough of a degree where that’s an option. Its like trying to swim in a lead suit.

            This is why social movements in the US need bodies. When you’re affecting people who can vote or people near them US politicians are easier to influence.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Again you argue that genocide and violence are foregone conclusions while somehow trying to claim that voting for one of the two parties perpetuating it is going to make a difference, or at the very least arguing thst not voting for one of these two parties is somehow wrong. This is completely nonsensical.

              Nobody is forcing you to be a party loyalist and there’s no restriction mandating that a Democrat or Republican hold these offices outside of the self-imposed restrictions created by people like you. If you want to shackle yourself to the status quo then so be it, but don’t try to con others into doing the same.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                No one is under the impression that voting for either candidate would lead to the end of support of Israel. It’s also not about party loyalty. As I pointed out to you here, it’s about everything else.