"Yes,and then you went on to present a clear logic game of your own (vote for Kamala=good), hence my criticism."

you don't understand the comment and are simplifying its specific conclusion to a fundamental moral rule you can understand that I did not make.

this is your exact same problem I pointed out before, your beliefs are overly simplistic. everything has to be black and white for you, including explanations of shades of gray.

"the Democrats are not assured victory (as you now seem to be saying)"

as I have been saying from the beginning and consistently throughout, nobody is assured victory in an election.

that is how elections work.

"why is the anti-genocide strategy supposed to be 'vote for them anyway', and not 'refuse to vote for them unless they change their policy'. "

it is not.

again, you're lumping in one thing with everything else for no reason.

If you are a single issue voter, and your vote is determined by the last single year of a 70-year military policy, that's your limiting judgment.

you have irrationally decided that a prospective presidential candidate from neither Israel nor Palestine, who wasn't born when US military aid to Israel began, needs to be held politically responsible for all of us history despite its irrelevancy to the issue at hand, the issue of discussion, her clear advantage over the only other significant presidential candidate.

that is selfish and short-sighted, but it isn't fundamentally wrong because you have that choice as a voter.

refuse to vote for whoever you want to, but closely examine why you are refusing to vote and if it makes sense within your own values (such as they are ), the context of the whole rest of the world or at least the rest of the political landscape.

You're willing to sacrifice American minority civil rights, climate change, abortion rights, every other progressive policy, to... demonstrate your newly found conscience regarding a third country that you are not part of the electorate of?

that is mind-blowingly selfish and wrong-headed, sort of like deliberately setting explosives and blowing up your family, home kitchen and the rest of the block because a McDonald's restaurant you just found out about introduced some sort of allergen ingredient into their burgers.

"We start from the premise that Democrats need votes (either because they're losing, or because they don't want to rest on their laurels). We agree one of these is the case, yes?"

not at all. you have made up two possible reasons that you can understand out of many.

you are playing in your sandbox, I am observing and gently pointing out the difference between sand and dog vomit.

"So your anti-genocide solution is to just give them the votes they need without asking for anything in return."

no.

you're make-believing random assumptions, straw men and limited inevitabilities rather than asking questions.

hip, inconsiderate cynicism isn't going to get you anywhere with me; sincerity and honesty in discourse is the only way you're going to move forward.

"...suggested, which you're arguing against, is to negotiate..."

they literally said " Unless they give in to our demands", they would rry to tank the US in retaliation.

first, that's unrealistic, as most people don't have such a limited understanding of the political process.

second, that is not good faith negotiation, That's impotent crybaby tantrum territory.

set over the backdrop of a meme that maybe took them one minute to put together as all the effort they were willing to expend on their "political ideology".

"To use the power we have as voters whose vote they need (or really, really want), to ask for a change in policy in return for that vote."

That's fine, go for it. You're attacking the current democrats from the flawed premise that the Israeli military and government is sonehow dependent on US support alone, which is as false as a notion can be, but trying to effect change through voting is a good, solid place to start from.

"You haven't explained why the latter won't work other than the Democrats not wanting those votes, or not wanting to end the genocide."

Yes I have, you didn't understand the explanation.

equating the current election and all of its complexity with a single half century old policy of mutual political support with a US ally is wrong-headed.

a minority of voters are willing to throw away their country.

these are conservatives.

an even smaller minority of voters, who ostensibly don't believe in conservative policies, are willing to join the conservatives to demonstrate their outrage toward a political party not any more responsible than anybody else for a separate Nations policy of genocide that has been happening for more than half a century.

I don't know if you can understand this yet, but your anger toward Israel is a complete non-issue toward the reality of the 2024 election.

If the public display of your newfound conscience is important enough to you to sacrifice all of your other beliefs and the rights of everybody you know and then some, that is your selfish prerogative as a voter.

"If we assume both - the Democrats want to end genocide and want more votes, them why wouldn't they offer to end genocide in exchange for more votes?"

The answer is in your flawed assumptions. If you're willing to sacrifice your own and everybody else's rights because you just learned about what Israel is doing to Palestine, then you clearly aren't in the right mind to be swayed toward social compassion or your own conscience, since you have not yet developed a conscience.

you don't have any real beliefs if you claim to care about Palestinian peope but you don't care about any Americans around you or the society you are a part of.

You have not suddenly become politically aware. You have joined a trend, a fad.

you are an ignorant radical, and it is not worth the trouble or sacrifice for the larger democratic platform, tirelessly fighting for your civil rights, to placate or give in to the selfish demands of an ignorant radical (or a toddler) for the possibility of a small number of votes.

being against genocide doesn't mean you have to vote one way or the other.

it is one issue among hundreds.

examine all of the issues and choose where to vote.

I strongly support third party voting (called " voting" in democratically free countries).

in this election, one of the candidates, a minority herself (within context) has already made historically significant progress in most of the environmental and social policies important to me.

she is who I am voting for because I have an independent, practical, comprehensive and expanding political understanding and elective ideology. a firm foundation from which to analyze policy and make decisions upon.

you should develop one too.