As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
Do you think electing Trump will be read as “wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights” by the world?
Electing Trump means Harris loses, which means that enough voting Americans believe that genocide is unacceptable to have held her as accountable as our system allows. It will be read as better than the alternative. Electing Harris means that we’ve been sold on genocide by a campaign that has embraced the Cheneys of all people.
… Or more likely, when the guy who was even more anti-Palistine manages to win the election, their takeaway will be to adopt some of those more-anti-Palistine policies and sentiments because they were apparently more popular. You’ve got the overton window backwards
That certainly seems to be the thinking of the Harris campaign.
A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.
Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.