• Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think the most reasonable assumption would be that the Democrats reckon that coming out against Israel will lose them more zionist votes then sticking with Israel will lose them anti-genocide votes. And given the amount of money AIPAC has been throwing around against anti-zionist candidates in primaries, that might not be an incorrect reckoning.

    • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which means they’ve made the calculation that they don’t need or want the anti-genocide vote.

      So don’t blame this anti-genocide voter for not voting for a candidate that doesn’t want me.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        They’ve probably also figured out how many people saying that will actually fold with a little arm twisting. Would be super interesting to see those numbers.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        And in doing so, you are hanging out to dry LGBTQ+, women, racial minorities, anyone working for minimum wage, anyone with health insurance, thousands of federal employees, the people of Ukraine, and when it really comes down to it, the people of Gaza.

        There is no anti-genocide option on the table. Not in any meaningful way. It’s not a real choice at all, to be honest, but the direction is clear.

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Imagine if all those people stood together against genocide instead of dividing over it. Women alone are like half the population… Why are they siding with genocide? They could elect anyone they want. Anyone with health insurance? That’s almost everyone. Bam, anyone they want. If a gay person votes for genocide how much should I really give a shit about them? There’s no “meaningful choice” because the libs get out early saying so… But if it’s not this election then certainly by the next one, millennials and zoomers are gonna be done with the old boomer parties… And good riddance

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I can imagine. Let’s say all these groups unanimously decided not to vote for democrats. Then they ask who they do vote for.

            Feminists vote for the best feminist candidate they can find. BLM votes for the best civil rights candidate they can find. LGBTQ people vote for the queerist person they can find. None of them support genocide, but none of them are voting for the same person.

            Now Trump wins with the vote split 40/20/20/20. Great job, we overwhelmingly voted against genocide and it only got worse.

            There is no anti-genocide option on the table. It is not a real choice.