4 ms·

No, they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC. I also will not vote for a Zionist. At some point, if we live in a real democracy, s

No, they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC. I also will not vote for a Zionist. At some point, if we live in a real democracy, someone will put winning an election over being controlled by Israel.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC If they cast a blank ballot, sure. Otherwise, betting on new turnout is a losing strategy. Particularly if you’re counting on that off cycle or in a primary.
- sporkxrocket 1y ago
  There’s enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale. For instance, how many elections do you think the Democrats need to lose before they address the desires of their only potential voters?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale There isn’t. Not across partisan lines. There is to flip primaries. But those too lazy or stupid to vote don’t affect those.
    - sporkxrocket 1y ago
      There really is and every poll will demonstrate that.
hedora 1y ago
That’s not how US elections work. Fun fact: If people like you would get off their asses on Election Day, Texas would have been a blue state for the last 15 years. The GOP would be done, and we could meaningfully decide between the Bidens and Bernies of this world.
- sporkxrocket 1y ago
  The US was “blue” when we helped Israel start the genocide. Too many democrats are far too lost in cable tv style politics and absolutely refuse to address how far over the red line they’ve stepped with their support for Israel. They will continue to lose elections until this is addressed.
  - hedora 1y ago
    The only way it will be addressed is if people like you hold your nose and vote reliably for the least bad choice. At that point, the GOP splinters or moves to center (they’re currently pandering to the rightmost 1/3 of the country, and would have to pander to the right 1/2 if you voted), and the “blue” people you dislike become the new “red”. Then, the candidates that are against things like genocide will have some sort of chance in hell of winning. Of course, it’s a moot point for this genocide, since the above will take a decade. Continue to protest by not voting, and you’ll be wishing for the days when Trump was in office.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  People that don’t vote are just voting to let someone else decide.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> they're a vote that can be won by someone willing to stand up to AIPAC If they cast a blank ballot, sure. Otherwise, betting on new turnout is a losing strategy. Particularly if you’re counting on that off cycle or in a primary.

sporkxrocket 1y ago
There’s enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale. For instance, how many elections do you think the Democrats need to lose before they address the desires of their only potential voters?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > enough rage built up against Israel that it will tip the scale There isn’t. Not across partisan lines. There is to flip primaries. But those too lazy or stupid to vote don’t affect those.
  - sporkxrocket 1y ago
    There really is and every poll will demonstrate that.

hedora 1y ago

That’s not how US elections work. Fun fact: If people like you would get off their asses on Election Day, Texas would have been a blue state for the last 15 years. The GOP would be done, and we could meaningfully decide between the Bidens and Bernies of this world.

sporkxrocket 1y ago
The US was “blue” when we helped Israel start the genocide. Too many democrats are far too lost in cable tv style politics and absolutely refuse to address how far over the red line they’ve stepped with their support for Israel. They will continue to lose elections until this is addressed.
- hedora 1y ago
  The only way it will be addressed is if people like you hold your nose and vote reliably for the least bad choice. At that point, the GOP splinters or moves to center (they’re currently pandering to the rightmost 1/3 of the country, and would have to pander to the right 1/2 if you voted), and the “blue” people you dislike become the new “red”. Then, the candidates that are against things like genocide will have some sort of chance in hell of winning. Of course, it’s a moot point for this genocide, since the above will take a decade. Continue to protest by not voting, and you’ll be wishing for the days when Trump was in office.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
People that don’t vote are just voting to let someone else decide.