Can we get a spoiler or a content warning for that second paragraph? That kind of ruined my lunch =(

Don’t. I regret doing so.

Yay! Thanks for the source, I’ve been wondering about that myself.

The possibility of stealing an election is a separate problem. We could also think about what to do if they steal the election simultaneously, but to me, that doesn’t really matter if she doesn’t win anyway. There’s also a lot less we can do about that unless you live in that swing state or district and can sign up to be a poll worker, or are a lawyer, so there doesn’t seem to be too much of a point in concerning myself about that.

Just curious, what are you going to do about that anyway? I’ve thought about that, too, but the only thing I could think of would be to get a gun to prep for violence lol.

That doesn’t help at all if Harris doesn’t get elected because she’s alienated parts of the country into not voting for her. This is an idea to get people to vote for her. You could complain about it, or try to bully them into voting for her, or downplay a genocide, but we already proved that doesn’t work.

I also think you misunderstand. This isn’t so much about me, I live in one of the bluest states in the country, so much as me worried about her declining poll numbers in swing states and an idea to try to recover some. I know it’s been mostly Republican polls recently, but I still see it worrying some friends in real life, so this is my attempt at a solution.

Swing states are definitely still a thing in this election and they will remain important. They may change election to election, but they’re still always there because of the electoral college. There’s a reason you still see them focusing on the same states as always this election.

Whoops might have accidentally deleted the post I was trying to crosspost instead of the duplicate post I made earlier 🤦

Basically, the idea is, if someone would want to vote for a third party because they don’t like a candidate’s pro-genocide policies or fracking or something, but they feel uncomfortable because they also live in a swing state and don’t want their least favorite candidate to win the election (probably Trump), they make an agreement with someone who lives in a safe state, who will vote for the third party that person wants instead.

Seems simple enough to set up and might assuage some people’s conscience instead of risking them voting for a third party, while still giving that party increased numbers this election. It also shows displeasure in the two party duopoly without risking the election itself for a candidate the person doesn’t want.

Would people be interested in a community or thread set up for this here on Lemmy and/or Reddit?

I have a feeling Israel would rather just stop invading other countries and genociding Palestinians than instigate a nuclear holocaust and killing all of themselves. Seems like the smarter open, no? It’s not like they haven’t been slapped down by the US before. They always go too far. This has happened before and will happen again.

Hell, even Reagan and HW have withheld arms and money to Israel before for invading Lebanon or taking over Gaza or West Bank settlements, and that was after they had nukes. Biden is to the right if Republicans on this issue.

The idea seems more for the person to vote for a third party in a state where it doesn’t matter. Since third parties don’t have a chance of getting elected anyway, but are going for numbers just to show clout or 5% for funding, it makes sense to me.

Haven’t seen this in this thread yet, but I’m going to say an improved sound system. For me, it was just a soundbar and rear speakers. I live in a tiny apartment so couldn’t fit a full sound system with front speakers, but just that was a huge improvement over just the TV speakers before.

They’ve purposefully keep trying to make the two state solution impossible. I hope it bites them one day, making a one-state solution where everyone can live in there peacefully and equally the only option.

Lots of people said that about switching candidates just a few months before the election but they pulled that off fine. Abandoning a pro-genocide stance seems like a low bar in that regard.

It’s not simplistic, it’s factual. It’s more complicated than some people think, but way more simple than Zionists make it look, who try to I jegt artificial nuance to make people look away. And it’s worked up until the internet has made it easier to see the genocide than ever before. I’d recommend looking into the British Mandate of Palestine, how a state was promised to Palestinians than reneged by the West to keep the Middle East in chaos, Herzl and the history of Jewish immigration to Israel (and alternative places they were considering like Africa), and the Nakba. Someone around here has a lot of good links, too. I’d also recommend looking into the US, Canadian, and Australian history to find out what settler colonialism is and see how it applies to Palestine.

Oh I’m sure she’ll speak against it any minute now, but I wouldn’t hold my breath…

People have already asked for Biden and Harris’s help in stopping this genocide and have been spurned. In this analogy, it’s already after they’ve been given the middle finger while bombs have been given to the people destroying their families. And it was barely applicable as it was.

And Israel already has nukes. But doubt they’ll use them, the whole point is to take the land they’re invading all over the place, not irradiate it. There’s not a lot Trump can give them that Biden and Harris aren’t already. They’ve even got boots on the ground now so we have an excuse to invade when some will inevitable die.

No, up to this point it has been billions of dollars and weapons to Israel with the occasional finger wag to them. Troops on the ground is the natural next step of his policy up to now, and congruent with Kamala’s statements that “Iran is the number one enemy”.

Are they? What are the conditions? They’ve already passed a hundred red lines so I don’t know if it’s very conditional at all.

You can’t both sides a genocide, especially when one side clearly started it by settling the other one’s territory, taking their land, and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, without their input. Hamas only popped up decades into Israel taking more and more territory, after many Palestine tried many other ways to fight back but failed.

There’s a big difference between “not perfect” and “enabling a genocide, giving weapons to an ally that is starting a war with all the Middle-East and the UN, and burning children alive in hospital refugee camps”.

The argument against that is that the best time to make a politician to promise something is when their job is on the line. The vote is really the only way normal Americans have to get their voice heard, and it, along with bribe money from lobbyists, is the only thing they listen to.

The other argument is that morally, many people can’t bring themselves to vote for someone enabling a genocide. Especially since Kamala is connecting herself so much to Biden saying she’d do all the same things, a vote for her is a stamp of approval for all of the current administration’s policies.

I’ve heard people say she has to support a genocide because so many Americans are pro-Israel, and she’ll lose the election if she doesn’t show unconditional support. That basically forces the anti-Zionist coalition to vote against her to show their numbers and prove they are to be listened to as well.

Ya remember that genocide after the apartheid South African state fell and was transformed into a state for everyone? That’s why you don’t see any South Africans nowadays. And they certainly never clog up my news, technology, and politics feeds with their inane opinions and dumb-looking trucks…