These are people who would have never, ever voted for Trump, but billions of dollars are being spent by the Democrats to slaughter our loved ones and our families. Israel has been decimating south Lebanon, where many of our relatives live, and now this administration is deploying US troops to the Middle East. Not exactly a winning strategy if they actually want our votes.
Some people think of a Trump vote as a protest vote. I have heard arguments being made along the lines of “Trump is not the person who is committing the genocide right now” or “Well, we didn’t have any wars under Trump”. I personally disagree with this, and consider Trump to be a fascist and fearmonger who deeply traumatised our communities during his presidency. He was a hateful leader who slammed the door on refugees by implementing a Muslim ban. While he didn’t start any wars, he did escalate existing wars in the Middle East and vetoed a series of bipartisan bills that aimed at prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
deleted by creator
I’m not convinced that I’m being disingenuous in saying that it is hard to support a party when it condones the killing of one’s family.
So I suppose you would vote neither party?
Party A is not doing enough to stop the killing and ‘condones’ (I disagree with that word and characterization) Party B has messaged that the killing isn’t going fast and hard enough and will give wider support to the killing once elected
Party B also wants to deport people of a certain heritage (multiple groups, not just the one) and perhaps you fall into that bracket? I really hope not.
If I lived in a country where both main parties supported Russia to invade Ukraine, I would not want to vote for either, no.
I would support the party which would reduce that support, or even oppose Russia.
Ok, so if both of these hypothetical parties fully and completely, without reservation, support the invasion (or let’s call it what it is, war) then there is not a lot you can do.
But it turns out one party has no problems with that invasion/war and supports it. Heck, they even tell others who protest the invasion to just accept it all as a fact and just deal and live with it. Also calls to surrender parts of your land because the leader of the invasion is having a certain ‘grip’ on the party leader.
The other party is lacking in action to change this outcome but has shown signs that they do not like the invasion but need to get/stay in power to try and stop the madness. But to get elected they cannot come out and say “we will stop the invasion” because that is a death-knell to their goal to be elected and in power.
As you see or can probably understand, you are not dealing with parties per-se, you are dealing with the populace who get to vote for either party. Navigating that populace to get elected is a tricky and a risky thing, before you know it you blew you chances and the other party wins.
This is truly the case of voting for the party who has some semblance of being able to do the right thing, even if it is late or voting for the party who has clearly signaled to be 100% against what you hope and stand for.
Best bet in this case is to vote for hope and possibility, not the surefire way the other party wants to dig a much, much deeper hole which will be infinitely more difficult to crawl out of.
There is no easy solution, only thing we have is choosing the ones who show a flicker of hope in doing better. Good luck!
Voting for the party which does not want to worsen the status quo might not work, considering the status quo is a minority of people exploiting the majority for power, and through doing that also making the environment worse for their descendants.
This might be the case, this is the ‘hope’ part I mentioned but it might work.
But you can bet on your life and those you care for that the other party will try everything in their new found power to make things absolutely worse.
I get the dilemma and voting for any party in this scenario is tough but I would still opt for the party of hope and which displays signs of change for the better.