• Optional
    link
    fedilink
    67 months ago

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

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

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      47 months ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 months ago

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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              7 months ago

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

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  17 months ago

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

      • Optional
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

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

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

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

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

          • Optional
            link
            fedilink
            17 months ago

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

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

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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

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

              • Optional
                link
                fedilink
                17 months ago

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

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

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  17 months ago

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

                  • Optional
                    link
                    fedilink
                    17 months ago

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

                    Not sure what the point is there.