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.

    • rando895@lemmygrad.ml
      131·
      2 months ago

      Sure there will be. Elections, especially the carefully controlled elections in the usa, are a great method of social control. If people are allowed to vote for someone it maintains the veneer of democracy, and reduces civil unrest.

      Imagine if the party funded by billionaires didn’t let you vote at all. It would be very clear that you live under a dictatorship of the wealthy owner class. But if instead you can vote for 2 candidates, both funded by the owner class, you “have a choice” and it appears democratic.

      As well, with such a stranglehold on information/media, the same donors can accept third parties as they will never get enough votes for it to change the power structure. But what happens if a third party has a bit too much support? Well you can’t have that, so the parties you fund work to get them taken off the ballot based on some law that is intended to maintain the status quo. That way you maintain “legitimacy” in the eyes of the people, remove the threat, and continue controlling the population for your own benefit.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        81·
        2 months ago

        Excellent answer. We need to compile yours and a bunch of other Marxist critiques of bourgeois “democracy”, and how truly effective it is at manufacturing consent and giving the illusion of choice, for capitalist rule.

    • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
      111·
      2 months ago

      I know this is the argument people think is the most compelling. But in reality, this is not hitting with the electorate. Calling him weird was much more effective. Even post Jan 6th!

      Trump bad, Trump fascist, for some reason that’s preaching to the choir; the urgency is already felt with the people who are gonna feel it. The campaign could realize this, and could pivot and focus entirely on abortion and economy, because they won’t touch the war. But Kamala is currently stumping with Republicans on a “Trump Bad” ticket. Fuck the Cheneys.

      Basically Trump = fascist, even if true, is ineffective, and is losing the election as Trump picks up immigration votes from minorities and protest votes from Muslims.