WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Monday he’s placing the Washington, D.C., police department under federal control and deploying the National Guard to make the nation’s capital safer.
Trump has promised new steps to tackle homelessness and crime in Washington, prompting the city’s mayor to voice concerns about the potential use of the National Guard to patrol the streets.
Ahead of a news conference, Trump said Monday on social media that the nation’s capital would be “LIBERATED today!” He said he would end the “days of ruthlessly killing, or hurting, innocent people.”
Violent crime in Washington D.C. is actually at a 30 year low.
Edit to add archive link: https://archive.ph/2C0cN
What if somebody agrees, and they acted accordingly in words and deeds, but then their opinions and actions were overruled by a combination of party leadership and millions of other voters?
Now it’s election day 2024, all debate and candidate selection is in the past, and the choices before this somebody are Same Old Shit (D), Turbo Fascism ®, or Other (send your message but don’t affect the outcome).
I think we should consider all lives equal value, naturally. That means we cannot ignore the tens of thousands of bodies in Gaza. It also means we cannot ignore the hundreds of thousands of excess covid deaths Trump already caused, or the lives and communities currently being destroyed because they are too LGBT-Mexican.
So our somebody is still standing in that voting booth.
Please tell me which is the moral vote and why.
This isn’t farming for a gotcha. This is the thought process I personally went through, and I enjoy having my mind changed. But having been active on Lemmy for a couple years now, I feel like I mostly understand but just disagree.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
I think the moral choice is quite obvious, history is literally repeating itself, and we should have learned this lesson. If you let the Democrats genocide Palestinians, who will you let them genocide next? Are you certain you’ll stop when they start domestic genocides?
The only moral choice is to stand up to Nazis, even the nice ones.
I notice you didn’t actually answer the question.
You’ve done your part and now it’s last november and you’re in the voting booth, and let’s say you’re in a swing state to boot.
What is the specific vote that’s morally correct and why?
I have answered, you’re just refusing to listen. Here, more concretely:
If I’m in the voting booth, I mark my ballot for a candidate who is not committed to genocide, even if they can’t win, because I will not personally authorize mass killing. I do that knowing it won’t “save the election” but it will keep my hands clean and my voice consistent.
The moral act is not about picking the winner. It’s about refusing to give your consent to mass slaughter.
We’ve seen this before. In 1930s Germany, the Social Democrats tried to stop the Nazis by partnering with “less fascist” nationalists. All it did was normalize authoritarianism and clear the path for worse horrors. Palestinian resistance thinkers like Ghassan Kanafani warned of the same trap: if you accept a colonizer who promises to bomb you less, you’ve already agreed that your people’s right to live is negotiable.
That’s what Democrats are banking on, that you’ll abandon your principles to stop “the worse guy.” But the pattern is clear: once you accept one genocide to stop a bigger one, you’ve agreed that genocide is a bargaining chip. And once it’s a bargaining chip, it never stops, it just changes targets, until one day the target is you.