is this mean american must select one from two genocide participant to support?

can this topic be negotiatable? like migrants and abortion, one party supports it, one party againsts it, let people choose which party to vote for

Or you could switch to a different voting system which allows more than two parties, allowing people to make more nuanced choices?

There are even voting systems which are perfectly representative (as a popular vote would be) and ensure all states get a voice (the goal of the electoral college).

Say, a bicameral system.

One chamber allocating each state a fixed number of voices, ensuring each state has a voice,

and a second chamber with mixed-member-proportional voting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU), which allows perfectly proportional majorities in this chamber while giving each district a representative (in the process also fixing gerrymandering).

In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.

sounds perfect, how to change to this system? who should people vote for to make it happen?

> In fact, it was actually this system, designed by the US, that the allied countries chose for Germany after World War II.

is there any other way to get this system besides a WW III?

> sounds perfect, how to change to this system? who should people vote for to make it happen?

That's another issue with the US system. If you've got only two choices, and one option is straight up "tear it all down", then the entire rest of the political spectrum has to be represented by the democratic party.

The only candidates in recent years that wanted to improve the situation were Obama, Romney, Bernie and now Walz.

I'd say register democrat, become active on the local level, and vote in primaries.

> Seeing your posts hours after Trump launched a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza is quite the sight.

Biden provided the bombs and the diplomatic cover that allowed Israel to decimate Gaza's population, permanently damaging entire generations, reducing the most densely populated areas on Earth to smoking rubble, and explicitly supported Netanyahu's ethnic cleansing plans. He basically alley-ooped this scenario to Trump.

> You’re like the black knight from Monty python.

Sheer projection.

Democrats lost because they supported genocide [0], [1]. They tried to court Republican women instead of their own base, trotting out people like Dick fucking Cheney [2] (after removing any mention of stopping torturing people from their platform).

When over 30% of Biden 2020 voters told pollsters they felt so strongly about an arms embargo that it could affect their vote, and Harris responded by saying she would keep sending bombs "no matter what", she lost. The win could have been a landslide, and Dems chose to tell their base to eat shit instead.

0 - https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling

1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/kamala-harris-you...

2 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/dick-cheney-groundbreaking-endors...

It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel?

Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide. Gaza voters weakened them further.

> It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel?

Nonsense. As can be plainly seen in the posted links, far fewer Democrat votes would have been lost by support for an arms embargo.

What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base.

> Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide.

Again, utter nonsense. Democrats voted against ceasefire four times at the UN; and made a mockery of domestic and international law by providing billions in arms to a regime that was likely to commit genocide.

And so it needs to be said: lack of money for Harris' campaign was not the issue. She outspent Trump, ffs.

> Gaza voters weakened them further.

That was a choice! Gaza voters would have strengthened them, if they had simply decided to stop arming a genocidal apartheid regime. That's what the polls I posted showed beyond doubt; and Dem elites knew all this months before the election.

> What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base.

This could have cost many seats in congress.

I acknowledge you might be completely right, but they were never gonna get the campaign and all of D congress to that position in the first place in a high stakes election.

> they were never gonna get the campaign and all of D congress to that position in the first place in a high stakes election.

If true, that would be just one of many reasons why they don't deserve our support.

The Democrats have repeatedly proven to be unable and unwilling to give anything more than token support to the existential crises of our time; be it forever wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, free speech, surveillance, torture, climate change, housing, healthcare, justice reform, election reform, etc etc.

By your logic above, all that would be justified.

Don't you get tired of being shepherded? Isn't the last 200 years of lesser evil voting [0] wearing kinda thin?

0 - https://pleasuretoburn.substack.fcom/p/lesser-evils-are-the-... - "Beginning in 1824, people made the “lesser evil” arguments in every single presidential election year I reviewed"

In this specific case the greater evil was clearly “the same or worse”, but with the opportunity for an irreparable, fatal outcome for Gaza.

I think lesser evils are present in every election. By your logic, total surrender is the only outcome.

I appreciate you engaging, but agree to disagree I guess.

> lesser evils are present in every election.

No, there are usually viable, non-genocidal third options - as there was in this election.

> By your logic, total surrender is the only outcome.

That's the very logical flaw which has you thinking that stumping for a genocide accomplice was 'the only option'. You're so close.

I have made a genuine attempt to understand what the third viable option is. I may be too dumb.

>a genocidal apartheid regime Or democratic state with the rule of law and free speech if we are being factual. Hamas knew exactly what the IDF response would be after carrying out their obscene, murderous pogrom on October 7. Hamas wanted their own people to die in the thousands, while they themselves cowardly hid in their tunnels built with aid money, because they knew they would get the support of useful idiots in the West like you.

The West should give Israel everything they need to wipe out Hamas. Whether it is in Ukraine or Gaza, when the barbarians are at the gate, the only answer is to kill them.

Anyone who had hope that Trump would avert the catastrophe was clearly ignorant of the facts of his subservience to the greater Israel plan.

Meanwhile, while Palestinians are eating cats, we are free to refer to Monty Python all we like.

Just don't mention the war.

Shouldn’t have voted for Hamas then. Shouldn’t have kept launching wars decade after decade against Israel because they hate Jews, wars they kept losing and kept whinging about losing even though they kept starting them; once they had lost the power to fight wars, shouldn’t have started throwing stones at the IDF and bombing discos in ridiculous “Intifadas”. These people in Gaza and the West Bank have a single idea in their minds - they want to murder all Jews. They are incurable.

Why didn’t they just accept a state in 1948? The Arabs have conquered land all across the ME and North Africa yet they begrudge Jews a sliver of land on which the only states that have ever existed, in antiquity too, are Jewish states. The Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank have shown themselves to be the most consistently stupid people in history. No wonder they are having to eat cats.

I'm flagging this because it's two paragraphs of propaganda opposite to base reality.

Why don’t you correct my errors instead of being a snitch? I see why you support the Hamas baby murderers - you have no morals, just like them.

This is not a response worthy of HN. Calling the parent poster names, saying they support "baby murderers" with no possible justification - please keep this kind of comment off this site.

The Palestinians are in the situation they are in because of their own choices, not because of some Greater Israel plan which the poster seems to think is the reason. The German people and the Japanese people suffered similar privations in WW2 - shouldn’t have attacked Poland and Pearl Harbor then. Choices have consequences. Do you see this rather simple point now?

> Do you see this rather simple point now?

There's no need to talk to me in this way, either.

Whether or not you're right, you're not doing your arguments any favor by being mean to other commenters with no reason.

I disagree. I am making two points - one is that if you look at the history, it is always the Arabs who started the wars and the violence; and in the latest round of violence Hamas deliberately and savagely murdered even babies and pregnant women, and then phoned their families to celebrate murdering Jews. Even the Nazis tried to hide their wicked deeds. And point two is that if you see these facts and decide that you support the Gazans, then you are not holding a different view, you are guilty of being an apologist to Ghengis Khan-level savagery and therefore are deserving of condemnation. Now do you see, my darling?

> Now do you see, my darling?

Once again, your argument aside, your way of speaking is the issue here. If you think you're winning anyone to your arguments in this way, you're wrong.

> And point two is that if you see these facts and decide that you support the Gazans, then you are not holding a different view, you are guilty of being an apologist to Ghengis Khan-level savagery and therefore are deserving of condemnation.

No, your point is wrong. You switched between talking about Hamas to talking about Gazans.

It is entirely consistent to be against Hamas but still support Gazans. In fact, some people claim that supporting Gazans means being against Hamas, because of Hamas's brutal dictatorship over the Gazans.

The Gazans voted for Hamas as their leaders knowing their genocidal policy towards Jews. The October 7 attack was popular among Palestinians including Gazans at first. Less so now. It is fair then to say that the Gazans bear some responsibility for the attack. Also, the IDF are targeting Hamas, not the Gazans as a whole. Additional civilian deaths are caused by the cowardly tactics of Hamas to use human shields. The Gazans knew that Hamas used these tactics when they voted for them. Again, you reap what you sow.

So you are pushing the idea that Palestine deserves to be genocided because it voted for people who want to genocide Israelis.

Does Israel deserve to be genocided because it voted for people who want to genocide Palestinians, or does it only go one way around?

Why do people pretend the start of history was October 7, 2023?

> So you are pushing the idea that Palestine deserves to be genocided because it voted for people who want to genocide Israelis.

I'm not going to speak for the parent poster, but I think the more legitimate Israeli position here isn't that Gaza deserves to be genocided, but it is legitimate to go to war with it to remove its rulers given their invasion of Israel. Israelis in general don't agree that what is happening is a genocide, as opposed to the terrible cost of a legitimate war.

> Does Israel deserve to be genocided because it voted for people who want to genocide Palestinians, or does it only go one way around?

> Why do people pretend the start of history was October 7, 2023?

Why do people keep saying this? No one thinks history started on October 7th. But Israelis did not vote for people who want to genocide Palestinians, and indeed there was no war happening before October 7th, everything since then has been part of the campaign that happened because of October 7th.

>> Why do people pretend the start of history was October 7, 2023?

> Why do people keep saying this? No one thinks history started on October 7th. But Israelis did not vote for people who want to genocide Palestinians,

they did

> and indeed there was no war happening before October 7th,

Haifa Massacre 1937

Jerusalem Massacre 1937

Balad al-Sheikh Massacre 1939

Haifa Massacre 1939

Haifa Massacre 1947

Abbasiya Massacre 1947

Al-Khisas Massacre 1947

Bab al-Amud Massacre 1947

Jerusalem Massacre 1947

Sheikh Bureik Massacre 1947

Jaffa Massacre 1948

Deir Yassin Massacre 1948

Tantura Massacre 1948

Khan Yunis Massacre 1956

Jerusalem Massacre 1967

Bahro Al Baquar 1972

Sabra and Shatila Massacre 1982

Al Aqsa Mosque Massacre 1990

Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre 1994

Jenin Refugee Camp April 2002

Gaza Massacre 2008-09

Gaza Massacre 2012

Gaza Massacre 2014

Gaza Massacre 2018-19

Gaza Massacre 2021

Gaza Massacre 2023

This list is incomplete. You can help by expanding it.

Firstly, this list is completely one-sided. If you actually think you're right, why not write something real? Do you honestly think this is a good representation of reality? It's like writing down a list of Allied attacks in WW2.

Secondly, what do you think this proves in terms of whether there is a war? Again, I can make a similar list of battles in WW2. Does that mean WW2 is still happening? Obviously not.

A bunch of what you wrote is before Israel was even founded. At least one is a (horrendous) terrorist attack carried out by an Israeli, but not by Israel. A bunch of them are from the war that followed Israeli independence, when multiple Arab nations attacked Israel. The biggest country that attacked Israel in that war iirc - Egypt - has had a peace agreement with Israel for 40 years!

You could say there is a war with Hamas, though officially there was a ceasefire following the previous fighting, which you call - for some reason - the "Gaza Massacre 2021").

Jews are the mass murderers of today.

Because they responded to the pogrom on their citizens? All the deaths in Gaza are lawful and according to the rules of war, a war that, yet again, for the 5th time in 75 years, the Palestinians started. Hamas are to blame for all the deaths. It is exactly the outcome they wanted so that they could yet again whine to the world about Israel, knowing full well useful idiots like you would suck it all up.

You are clearly saying it's acceptable for Israel to respond to the pogrom on their citizens.

Can you clarify whether or not it's also acceptable for Palestine to respond to the pogrom on their citizens? Is this a privilege that every country gets, or just Israel?

And does the amount of acceptable response scale in proportion to the amount of citizens killed in the pogrom?

Even if you believe that Israelis are mass murderers, and even if you are willing to ignore that plenty of other groups have killed far more people, there's zero justification for making this statement about Jews and not Israelis.

This comment is simply antisemitism.

We've banned this account. If you keep creating accounts to break HN's rules with, it will get your main account(s) banned as well, so please stop doing this.