Is the rationale really that strange? A constituency says, "Here's an issue I care deeply about, change your policy, or we won't vote for you." When the politician doesn't change on the issue, the constituency doesn't vote for them. Isn't that just how voters exercise political power?
Yes, it's really that strange. Protest votes and sitting this one out make sense in primary season.
In general election season, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'd say "it accomplishes nothing," but it's actually worse because it gets you Trump, who WILL be worse.
Biden backed Israel into accepting the terms of a cease-fire proposal that Hamas might have accepted today.
Trump's team told potential Muslim supporters about beachfront property in Gaza.
You know, it didn't take me long to learn that nobody gets everything they want out of an election, because the candidates have people giving them incompatible ultimata.
It is disingenuous to say, “here’s an issue I care about, change your policy or I won’t vote for you”, while the other party is demonstrably worse on that issue.
It says to me that they don’t actually care about that issue.
Sure, exercising the power to produce a worse outcome if one of the two gets elected. Shooting yourself in the foot is a great way exercise your power. Really top notch logic there.
The only way to effect change with your vote is to use it. Use it in November and use it in the next PRIMARY and in the meantime, use your voice, but by withholding your vote you only silence yourself.
But it’s not so simple, is it? You must also include potential future behavior in your calculus. In Gaza, you have someone whose advisor wants to cleanse the Strip to build luxury condos, and you also have Biden. One of these men will be president. Why not vote so you avoid the worse outcome?
If the rationale is “I want to make things better in Gaza,” then yes, it is strange. It will not make things better and will only make things there much worse.
If the rationale is “I just want to make Democrats angry,” then I guess not.
It's this simple: Because there are only two candidates to choose from, and if you don't vote at all your views get extra bonus disregarded next cycle.
But if half the people who could vote, but don't, did, then we would have a whole 'nother politics in this country.
Well, if you completely ignore any context, like T. urging Israel to "finish the job".
That's like saying they care more about their little bit of personal power than they care about the people they claim to support. It's complete self-interest.
Dude, Genocide Joe is pro-Israel, and that's bad. But you should look up what Trump has said about Palestinians. He's not only pro-Israel, he straight up hates Palestinians.