Ok to make some thing clear because you seem to misunderstand a lot of things.

If you want to clarify any of my alleged misunderstandings I expect you to name what I actually got wrong and quote it if necessary. You made a series of errors in your response and are not in a position to project an sense of condescension.

I'm not from the US

I never said otherwise.

I vote greens in my country and despise the liberals of your and my country.

Greens are, generally speaking, liberals. Just because they don't put "liberal" in their name doesn't mean they aren't part of the liberal ideology of capitalism - in this case, via reforms like regulating energy production and expanding social programs. Buy they lose to groups like, say, AfD because they cleave to the liberal policies that degrade conditions and they embrace Imperialism just as willingly as any socdem party.

When i put quotes around against genocide I do so because as I explain in the whole thing it's in effect not against genocide as it's not stopping it plus adding a genocide in your own population.

I see, so they were scare quotes intended to denigrate the act of not voting for genociders. This is only slightly less shameful.

You are so caught up in your whole spiel that you've built a boogeyman you assume me to be

You are advocating for supporting genociders I do not need much in the way of assumptions.

without actually reading the text which is already clear when you take my introductory sentence and complain that I've not provided the logic before the introduction.

I read and quoted literally everything you said and responded to it directly. And no, you did not provide logic. I was correct in this. Your attempt at a lecture was disjointed and you did not tie the pieces together. I had to surmise the connections for you and point out the gaps.

When my logic sends like standard laser evil tropes then that's because it is.

Yes I know, these are tropes taught to children and sold to the politically illiterate. I have already said this.

I detailed the logic without buzzwords

You did not provide logic. Your premises were false and your conclusions don't follow from them or a coherent rationale. I did my best to respond to it by recognizing that these are not your ideas they are bits and pieces of very standard Baby's First Electoralism bits of partisan logic.

because so many people stop thinking about the why the moment they hear them.

Oh? So when are you going to respond to my criticisms? Do you think that you, yourself, may have actually stopped thinking about it? Instead detailing the bits that you feel you were right about and that I did not get right, conveniently ignoring the rest?

Again, these are not new concepts to me. You are not teaching me anything. I shared this lesser evil logic when I was a child and then I actually read history and politics. This does not make me special or better, but you have exactly the wrong posturing for this conversation.

And a good clue for how you are wrong is that instead of opposing genocide you are trying to get people to support genociders. That should have made you pause and go do some reading. You are doing a horrible thing. Don't you think you should have made sure you were right?

And you don't need more than lesser evil because lesser evil is all you have in your shithole of an electory system.

Incortect and I already addressed this. Please respond to what I have said rather than repeating your lecture.

You have no option to actually bring a 3rd party into power.

I have an option to spread consciousness against genocidal capitalists and their political parties. The greatest error in your "logic" is your framing and assumptions. We could get to that topic if you would actually engage with what I said and ask questions.

Maybe I'll get to your other points when I'm actually awake and not lying in bed with a fever but probably not

I'm sorry you have a fever. I suggest you rest instead of advocating for genocide.

Punishment for imperial-approved war crimes requires the subjugation of said empire. It has to fall before the UN and war crimes count for anything.

Thanks!

Simple question: Who do you think would be better for the country as president?

There is no meaningful discrimination within one's power to predict. Appropriating manic cop genocidal neoliberal jingoist suit vs. uncivil blowhard racist uncle geriatric con man. Is oppression better when it is packaged with a smile and a pander? What if we remove the pander and just point at the other candidate and say, "or else". Have you considered whether this question is a sufficient look at political action, with your pro-genocide vote filtered down as support for A or B genociders chosen for you by capitalist parties and their donors and subject to the electoral college such that if you are in 90% of states, including the most populous ones, it makes no difference in the outcome outside of you saying, "that's right I don't think of Palestinians as human"? Have you thought that thought? Or are you too busy explaining lazy high school civics like nobody's ever heard of the two party system?

Neither isn't an option, because one is happening, no matter what.

Cool well I'm voting for neither so account for that in your simplistkc game theory framework. I expect to see your homework in Game Theory 1}%, module 1: Baby's First Electoralism in by Thursday by midnight EST.

Equally bad isn't an option either, as no 2 people are completely identical.

Cool so you can quantity them? Normalized to 1 with a minimum if 0, what are their scores? Is it in the real numbers, rationals, fixed digits I.E. integers plus modulo a factor of 10? Us dummies need to know!

It doesn't matter is objectively false, as they will do things differently, and those differences are not equivalent.

O oracle, lend me your sight! Will the polite manic neoliberal that receives absolutely zero opposition from you be worse than the McDonald's Toy version of a memory of a whisper of Huckster George Wallace that you walk through town in a police-samctioned parade? Tell us!

The fact is actively telling Kamala supporters not to vote is indirectly voting for Trump, and vice versa, whether you yourself turn up or not.

Thank you for acknowledging that not voting for Trump is a vote for Kamala Harris so the previous questions are moot.

If you truly believe it doesn't matter, there's no reason to tell anyone to not vote, as voting and doing the other actions you recommend are not mutually exclusive.

Your vote matters in that you may normalize genocide with it. I would ask that you be a person that is against genocide and that you don't vote for it. And then that you recognize you are not sharing wisdom but tired and old talking points that do not justify your descension and that you should care a bit more about brown people than being snarky in a Reddit clone that exists solely because your app mind-for-tif got taken away.

Incidentally, you are from an Australian instance. Kindly go work in solidarity with aboriginal groups against your rampantly racist society and your imperialist AUKUS-promoting US subject state instead of advocating for American genociders.

Thanks for the movie rec! I added it to my queue. There is a lot of overlap between WWII movies at the time and Westerns so if nothing else I will enjoy making comparisons. If you could sum up your takeaway in one sentiment, what would it be?

Voting for Kid Killer Kamala ain't doing that. And there is no meantime, organizing requires your help right now.

Focusing of Netanyahu is a false catharsis, it makes the problem something external and non-actionable for most people while reducing it to a single actor. I will explain what I mean by this by providing some additional context.

The first is that the US is the dominant superpower, Israel's guarantor and sponsor. It manufactures and gifts the weapons if genocide you see used to burn refugee children alive. They are manufactured by people with "good union jobs" in the US. The US creates and maintains propaganda in support of Israel, provides diplomatic cover both in the UN and direct threats and consequences for those who oppose the apartheid regime, provides direct military, logistics, and recon support, and constantly sends cash. The US is the dominant partner in that relationship and has near dictatorial power. A single call from Reagan or Bush made them stop similar campaigns. Biden, and implicitly the state apparatus behind him, are pushing the genocide button. The US is also where most, or at least a plurakity, of Lemmitors live. They can help organize against the genocide carried out his their state. If the genocide is treated as a character flaw of Netanyahu, it becomes possible to say, "well that's Israeli voters' problem".

The other important piece of context is that Netanyahu is roughly as bloodthirsty as the wider Zionist settler population. He is not actually uniquely terrible relative to the wider public, as if he is an illegitimate representative or the likely alternative is better. Bibi's unpopularity since October 7 stems from not sufficiently feeding the security and superiority complex of the ethnic supremacist society that is the Zionist entity. The public wants more "retribution". It is pissed the hostages aren't back, not that they are gemociding Gaza. They are pissed that settlers fled Northern Israel after facing 1/100th of what Palestinians face. They broke a rapist, a torturer of Palestinian prisoners out of jail over outrage that he face any consequences. They threatened state authorities into dropping it and he was paraded around on TV. They are that racist. Netanyahu's current unpopularity stems more from his lack of performance in support of ethnic supremacy. His popularity went up when they started bombing residential areas of Lebanon. All of this is to say that the genocide is popular and if Bibi were replaced you would see actions that rhyme with the current status quo. You might even see the people to his right gain power, the more overt ethnic supremacists that don't even try to pretend otherwise for foreign media.

I will acknowledge this repeated bad faith behavior as an admission that you cannot respond any further in this particular comment chain. I'm sure you will respond with some more dishonest word salad and you are welcome to it.

I responded directly to what they said re: there being multiple issues they want to weigh. That was their response up me challenging complicity in genocide and asking why the person I was responding to was sheepdogging for genociders. They are trying yo be euphemistic and retreat to the thought-terminsting clichés that reinforce complicity in genocide, which also means avoiding even using the word. So I recontextualized their attempt to decontextualize while still directly addressing it.

Please feel free to tell me which specific parts you would like to see addressed or responded to. I certainly already replied to the first sentence, which was the main point of deflection.

What is more important than supporting and normalizing genocide?

Instead of trying to justify supporting "lesser evil" genocide, you should oppose genocide. If you fail to do that, you are complicit.

I know that the hold that Israel (and the military industrial complex) has on both major political parties is money, Money, MONEY.

The Israeli lobby is the American lobby. Israel is useful to US' state and capitalist domination of the region and the US backs it to the hilt. It is not just that there are moneyed PACs, though there are. It is also that the entire state imperial apparatus recognizes that Israel is a tool against pan-Arabism, that it is important for maintaining the petrodollar, that it helps suppress Iran in its sovereign development. And US business interests are closely tied to those of Israel, so Israel's loss is also their loss (and thanks to the resistance, they are feeling those losses right now!).

But there has got to be a breaking point.

There is no inherent moral breaking point. The US and its proxies will commit genocide unimpinged without dedicated efforts against them.

The American people are miseducated and racist, they cannot oppose this simply because it is wrong, they must first overcome the barriers of their miseducation and their chauvinism. They must understand what has been done to Palestine and they must consider Palestinians to be fellow people deserving of just as much as themselves and their neighbors. This is an effort that requires dedicated work and organization in left organizations, commitment to work over years and years.

The greatest forces of resistance are everywhere else. They are the forces of the al-Aqsa flood, the greater resistance forces, of Yemeni solidarity against genocide (they have faced their own by American proxies and Americans aren't even aware of it), the countries standing increasingly in solidarity with Palestine and the resistance and pushing back against the narratives of the gemociders.

I mean, I will still vote for Harris, because I’m not stupid.

You should take a look at yourself if you think there should be a breaking point for supporting genocide. You are complicit, announcing your support for one of the genociders! Why aren't you working against the genocide? Doing nothing would be better than offering them free support.

I know the alternative is far worse.

Normalizing support for genocide is why the political class can genocide without fear of repercussions. What are you going to do, not vote for them? Obviously not, you are still entrapped by their false logic into being their loyal sheepdog. Of course anyone that can understand politics beyond a 1-month time frame can see that this is self-defeating logic, and, per your own rhetoric, is something you should consider snapping out of when faced with supporting those that burn refugee children alive in their tents.

But I’d rather not have innocent blood on my hands after I fill out that ballot.

Then don't vote for genociders, let alone sheepdog for others to do the same, and do something actually politically helpful. Become educated and join organizations that have had solidarity with Palestine from day 1.