504
Trump says he's placing Washington police under federal control and deploying the National Guard
(www.channel3000.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
504 points (99.2% liked)
News
32345 readers
4936 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 (R), 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.