We are constantly told that solutions to some of the greatest challenges facing poor and working class people in the U.S. do not exist. Meanwhile, billions taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the genocide of Palestinians.
That very money could have ended homelessness in the United States.
Money for our needs, not the U.S.-Israeli war machine!
If you're in a poorly made boat that has a hole in it with two other people...
And you are all actively sinking in that faulty boat, about to die in the middle of the ocean...
And one of the people states they will make more holes so you all drown....
And the other wants to work to keep the boat floating enough to get to shore, but not to your ideal...
Who do you help in that moment, or do you fold your hands and sink on principle? And you understand that sinking is not a moral victory here, because you've effectively supported the person who wanted to make more holes and sink the boat.
If you don't get to shore, you won't live to attempt to sue that horrible boat company to hold them accountable and keep others from using their faulty boats. And if you don't help the person bailing out water, the person making more holes will kill you all with less effort.
The "people" above are to represent general philosophies of the two "sides" in this discussion, not insightful candidates. There is no option to truly stay neutral here, direct action or willful inaction, both have impacts that you are responsible for.
What do you do?
And who does this represent in your scenario?
This post, at this time, is very obviously pointed at influencing the US election. This analogy represents the entirety of the US population eligible to vote in that election and the two dominant political parties in the US as a country with two party politics - a flawed degradation of the system originally designed to be sure, which is a separate conversation you can have, but there is an objective truth that one of two parties will win this election. Period.
That objective truth acknowledged, there is no neutral or third option here, regardless of how hard some may try to convince themselves otherwise. You have no moral high ground in the middle or to the side, you'll either vote for assured destruction or you'll vote for a chance at stopping it. You missed your chance to fundamentally shift our political structure the 4 years, and 200+ years, prior. So now we come to the table as adults, get Harris in as the better option, and then as soon as she's sworn in and has the power to do so, we fill the streets in protest and demand the immediate end to this.
trump and his people have literally talked out loud about how great the "beachfront property" will be for Israel once they annihilate Gaza and the Palestinian people. There is no maturity in the false vitriol and attempts to solicit votes for trump/stein/no vote (which are all the same enthusiast vote for trump and for the assured destruction of every last Palestinian person.
Criticizing a genocide doesn't automatically mean someone's trying to influence an election, especially considering that it been constantly criticized for over a year.
If both political parties geopolitical goals align with Israel, what exactly leads you to believe this is meant to influence the election? It's not telling you to vote for stien, or trump.
Maybe if people didn't go out of their ways to shield any level of criticism of their representatives we might have a more functional democracy, and maybe there would be less kids dying in Gaza.