Withholding your vote until genocide is taken off the table pressures her to give in to their demands, though. There’s no universal constant saying we need to have a genocide. Either she loves genocide, or she’s supporting it because she’s worried she won’t get the votes without it. If it’s the second one, and I hope it is, then the Uncommitted movement is simply doing the same thing to establish their own power, and for a better reason: to save the lives of their friends, family, aid workers, doctors, and journalists.
so late into the elections it will only increase chances of Trump winning and will not convince her to change stance.
the risk of this is that you move even further away from your goals, practically to a place where it is impossible to do anything about genocide (since core supporters of Trump wont give a shit about and Trump himself for sure will be where money and strongest lobbies are).
this plan only makes sense if your perspective is “by diverting votes we let Trump win, everything goes to hell and then there is some sort of reform/revolution after he fucks up everything”. But given that maybe %30 of the country is still big time Trump supporters, we are likely looking at a civil war in that case.
You’re never going to be able to convince a lot of people to accept a genocide of their own people. It’s just not possible for some and I don’t blame them. A lot of Americans have never been attacked at home so they don’t understand. It’s a gamble the Administration is doing to keep up their rabid cheerleading of the Nazi-like side. Hopefully it doesn’t blow back on them.
what if realistically speaking the only current choice is between even a worse situation in middle east vs maybe slightly better than the status quo? I know it sucks but without changing how the elections in US works, you are not going to go from democrats vs republicans to a progressive major party in one election. In one election your only chance is to get slightly closer to it or quite further away.
Withholding your vote until genocide is taken off the table pressures her to give in to their demands, though. There’s no universal constant saying we need to have a genocide. Either she loves genocide, or she’s supporting it because she’s worried she won’t get the votes without it. If it’s the second one, and I hope it is, then the Uncommitted movement is simply doing the same thing to establish their own power, and for a better reason: to save the lives of their friends, family, aid workers, doctors, and journalists.
so late into the elections it will only increase chances of Trump winning and will not convince her to change stance.
the risk of this is that you move even further away from your goals, practically to a place where it is impossible to do anything about genocide (since core supporters of Trump wont give a shit about and Trump himself for sure will be where money and strongest lobbies are).
this plan only makes sense if your perspective is “by diverting votes we let Trump win, everything goes to hell and then there is some sort of reform/revolution after he fucks up everything”. But given that maybe %30 of the country is still big time Trump supporters, we are likely looking at a civil war in that case.
You’re never going to be able to convince a lot of people to accept a genocide of their own people. It’s just not possible for some and I don’t blame them. A lot of Americans have never been attacked at home so they don’t understand. It’s a gamble the Administration is doing to keep up their rabid cheerleading of the Nazi-like side. Hopefully it doesn’t blow back on them.
what if realistically speaking the only current choice is between even a worse situation in middle east vs maybe slightly better than the status quo? I know it sucks but without changing how the elections in US works, you are not going to go from democrats vs republicans to a progressive major party in one election. In one election your only chance is to get slightly closer to it or quite further away.