A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump. Palestinian lives don't matter to Trump, nor do they really matter to Harris; however in general, Harris will be better for Americans than Trump, so vote for Harris.
A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump.
Just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
Imagine if Nader didn't run. Imagine there was no Green Party candidate for US President.
Gore would have probably won, and America would have been the better for it. Probably no Iraq war, maybe not even a 911. As a result Iran probably wouldn't be as strong, and Putin probably would have less to legitimately oppose about the US, and would himself be seen as less legitimate—indeed Ukraine might still be whole today.
A new Green deal would probably be in full swing.
Granted, Harris doesn't really care about Palestinians, and some elements of the Democratic party care even less; but Trump cares even less than Harris, and what he will do to the US will be worse.
So while Israel massacres civilians and steals more land, at least under Harris American women would still more easily get abortions, we will have fewer TGs committing suicide (maybe), and health care will be a little more universal.
Also with the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, the Big 3 will be able to better produce good inexpensive cars (as they've been at least somewhat intending these past several decades), and fascism will have less of a hold on the US.
Therefore: vote for Harris.
If you are a progressive: vote for Harris.
If you are an environmentalist: vote for Harris.
If you are a libertarian: vote for Harris.
If you support voting reforms such as proportional representation, rank balloting, the abolition of the Electoral College, and/or more political diversity: vote for Harris.
If you are nauseated at the idea of voting for Harris: take a barf bag with you while you vote for Harris.
If you are a Palestinian-American who has a relative who was injured, maimed, or even murdered, in Gaza, you should still vote for Harris, because again, Trump doesn't care about them either, but at least you, as an American citizen, will get a better deal Harris than under Trump.
(I'm not entirely sure if I agree with all the above, but I find it hard to refute.)
If you actually want Harris to win, what do you actually think this bullying does to help her?
Just for like a second, consider the person you suppose yourself to be trying to reach, isn't ready to vote for Harris. What do you think this abusive approach to rhetoric does? Do you think it helps Harris?
Israel's current policy is to shoot babies in the head and light them on fire.You've provided no argument for why anyone should vote for Harris, simply an abstract argument that Trump would "be worse". If you really cared about getting Harris elected, you would never dare engage in this kind of obtuse rhetoric that only serves to distance voter Harris herself abandoned even further.
When Harris loses this election, which she is on course to do, the people parroting this idiotic rhetoric will be the ones to blame for her loss. You can't bully or vote shame people into doing what you want them to. It DOES NOT WORK and has significantly impacted Harris' electability among the key constituencies she needs to win. Harris needs Arab and Muslim voters in the upper midwest. Rhetoric like this makes building a bridge to overcome the damage Harris did all the more difficult. Obama literally just used the same rhetorical approach, and it almost assuredly lost Harris a couple points in the south.
If you want Harris to win, you need to do better and focus your criticism on the candidate. No one is owed your vote, and if Harris has policies that are so unpopular she can't get elected with them, focus your rhetoric on fixing the candidate. Otherwise, you are just making the situation worse with this obtuse, play-ground bully approach to electoralism.
Discussing how reality works is not bullying. Discussing how in the current election system, 3rd parties are spoilers is not abusive.
Opponent do indeed "be worse" when that is supported by past actions (in the very elected role,even) , and present statements. Avoiding worse is a meaningful voting strategy, albeit a bleak one. Opponent "be worse" requires abstract goal seeking because we do not "downvote" when we vote. You can't vote against someone, explicitly. You have to assemble the goal of "for trump to be out, someone else must be in". That's unsavory to someone who only thinks of their vote as a seeming love letter, not a political lever (albeit a small one).
It's like you totally missed the point. Vote shaming DOES NOT WORK. No matter how much you try, no matter how you approach it, you will never, ever, be successful with vote shaming. Tell people to vote. That's it. Don't try to tell people why their choice is dumb, because it will either entrench the position or dissuade someone from voting at all, which hurts down-ballot Democratic candidates.
To be fair he's probably made this post in direct reaction to the rather obnoxious "Both sides are the same" folks that also happen to parrot "If you vote for Harris, you support Genocide". I was on Reddit for over a decade and even I'm sick of seeing those replies.
Not saying it's an excuse, only that it's a possible reason.
but Harris does support genocide, but the lives of >330 million Americans are more important than a few million Palestinians.
Again with Trump, both Americans and Palestinians will be worse off;
but with Harris, it's only the Palestinians who will suffer.
It's the greater good, or more aptly, the lesser evil.
If their position is not shifted by sharing the realities of a 2 party, first past the post election happening in 2 weeks then no information will have any impact, regardless of medium, tone, or speaker. This topic has been discussed in every possible way across the internet over the last year. Some more friendly, some more stark.
And that's the point. If the democratic party loses legitimately in this election, it's the democratic party's fault. Not the handful of 3rd party voters. In 2016, we saw that 3rd party voters would not have voted if their choice wasn't on the ballot. You can get pissy about 3rd parties and strategy, but vote shaming will always be ineffective.
Edit My conclusion is that there has been much quality discussion over the past year, educating isn't shaming.