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 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
The Roe v Wade decision and the Chevron decision literally happened under Biden, a democrat. Before you butter up the Democrats as the second coming of Christ, consider that the Democrats are literally in power and have been for the last four fucking years of hell. It’s not that those decisions don’t matter, it’s that the venn diagram of what your vote can possibly do, and the ways to reverse those decisions, it looks like this: O O
The great thing about this topic is this exact argument has already played out in a very recent historical example. You could, and many people did, make this exact argument in 2016, and it produced the very decisions we’re talking about. And now, evidently having not followed that thread of cause and effect at all, you’re back saying the same argument again.
It’s precisely because SCOTUS appointees lock in long term consequences that impact multiple future administrations that they are important, and a clear example of where differences in power lead to different outcomes.
This has always been the obvious weak spot in the “both sides are the same” argument. The only answer anybody has come up with is to constantly change the subject. Which is the tell.
You act like your argument is infallible lmao the SCOTUS is so important and yet the Democrats refuse to pack the courts because it’s not the right thing to do according to some bullshit idea of playing by the rules.