We turn to Kamala Harris’s position on Israel’s war on Gaza, which many are calling a genocide. After she was asked about calls to condition U.S. arms shipments to Israel by CNN reporter Dana Bash, Harris refused to consider halting the flow of weapons and instead affirmed her support of Israel. This position violates both federal and international law, argues Palestinian American political analyst Yousef Munayyer, and, coupled with her campaign’s denial of a requested Palestinian American speaking spot from “uncommitted” voters at the DNC, he warns that “Harris could be worse than Biden” when it comes to U.S. support for Israel.
It’s saying if you don’t vote for the best chance to stop the threat to democracy (Trump) then you are, on some level, ok with what Trump will do.
Same applies the other way. If you think she’s horrible for some reason but don’t vote for Trump (the candidate with the best chance to beat her), then you’re willing to accept her agenda.
Following this logic: anyone who does not vote for Trump votes for Harris.
So a vote for third party is a vote for Harris?
Apparently you don’t get logic. You’re definitely a Stein voter.
I applied logic consistently. I see that is not appreciated here.
No.
It’s saying if you don’t vote for the best chance to stop the threat to democracy (Trump) then you are, on some level, ok with what Trump will do.
Same applies the other way. If you think she’s horrible for some reason but don’t vote for Trump (the candidate with the best chance to beat her), then you’re willing to accept her agenda.