There are currently armed militias targeting bureaucrats for violence due to Republican misinformation. How many more escalations really remain before a full-blown civil war?
I’m not advocating for revolution, but it certainly seems more likely than the Democrats dropping their unwavering support for Israel.
There have always been armed militias targeting the federal government. You know who those armed militias support for President? You know which candidate would welcome those armed militias?
I don’t disagree, homey. Seems like the militias are going to be a growing problem regardless of the election. What we disagree on here is the solution.
For me, the solution is for the Dems to call the genocide what it is and force a ceasefire.
I’m not judging people for pulling the only lever the US system gives them. I don’t advocate for voting for Trump and don’t recommend anyone does, but I do understand how some people might choose to vote against the people who are currently bombing them with the hope that the only other option won’t.
What about Trump could possibly make you think that he would continue the status quo in any way, shape or form? He already publically said he would turn the military on anyone who opposed him.
We also know how he feels about anyone who isn’t a straight, white, Christian male, so how anyone arrives at the conclusion that things wouldn’t be catastrophically worse for everyone outside that demographic is a complete mystery to me.
I’m tired of the argument here that voting for a third party will make some sort of positive statement, so just do what you have to do. When Trump wins and starts deporting (or worse) Muslims currently in this country, they can all go see if Jill Stein will save them. The status quo sucks, but it’s also a lot harder to campaign for change after they’ve been expelled from the country.
For what it’s worth, I am 100% against the genocide in Gaza and I want the bombs to stop being delivered. However, it’s easier to rally and protest for change without someone aspiring to be a dictator in power.
What about Trump could possibly make you think that he would continue the status quo in any way, shape or form? He already publically said he would turn the military on anyone who opposed him.
America is a dying empire, that is the status quo.
We also know how he feels about anyone who isn’t a straight, white, Christian male, so how anyone arrives at the conclusion that things wouldn’t be catastrophically worse for everyone outside that demographic is a complete mystery to me.
We also know that the dems haven’t been protecting anyone from republicans.
I’m tired of the argument here that voting for a third party will make some sort of positive statement, so just do what you have to do. When Trump wins and starts deporting (or worse) Muslims currently in this country, they can all go see if Jill Stein will save them. The status quo sucks, but it’s also a lot harder to campaign for change after they’ve been expelled from the country.
For what it’s worth, I am 100% against the genocide in Gaza and I want the bombs to stop being delivered. However, it’s easier to rally and protest for change without someone aspiring to be a dictator in power.
Big talk for someone arguing against protesting for change.
They say that every time, and people are fooled each new election. The US system is not a democracy, but it’s really good at convincing it’s citizens that they live in one.
I agree there’s a horrific genocide taking place, aided by the USA, and all Americans should be ashamed of this. But to be fair, the headline indicates these voters will vote against Harris. Either that’s a vote for Trump or a vote for a third party. Either way it increases trump’s likelihood of being elected.
Ok? There’s a simple solution here for the democrats.
Let’s not engage in victim blaming here and recognize who has power to end this and who is exercising their right to express their profound and utter disappointment in a political system that is, at best, ambivalent to their suffering.
calling it the “Israel-Gaza crisis” implies equivalence. As somebody else notes, not using the word genocide is also a strong signal that you don’t believe it’s a genocide. Finally, you used “lol” when talking about a genocide. In short, all evidence in your message suggests that you do not take it seriously.
If the point of your comment isn’t to minimize suffering and mock people for their political choice, then what is the point of your comment?
So the two realistic options are Trump and Harris. You do realize Netanyahu wants Trump to win, correct? You do realize Trump isn’t going to do a damn thing except attempt to install himself as God Emperor of the US if he’s elected while utterly ignoring all outside politics, yes? So by not voting for Kamala, that’s what you’re signalling you’re ok with.
Harris has at least signaled she is willing to consider forcing Isreal to some sort of negotiation table. Although neither side is going to say anything particularly inflammatory ahead of the election because… AIPAC, who has literally thrown millions at any candidate that has spoken out against them pre-election.
Because Trump is so likely to be a better choice for solving the Israel-Gaza crisis, lol.
When you can’t even call it a genocide of Gazans by Israel you should rethink whether you should even comment.
Good thing no one is making that argument then.
The existence of this post is the embodiment of that argument you clown
LOL
So you’re saying some people are making that argument? Who are they?
Nobody said that, neither choice is going to solve it so it’s better to abandon both if genocide is a red line for you.
Aha, so just don’t participate. Cool cool.
I’m all on-board with revolution.
What’s the plan, my friend? How do you plan to fight against knife-missiles?
There are currently armed militias targeting bureaucrats for violence due to Republican misinformation. How many more escalations really remain before a full-blown civil war?
I’m not advocating for revolution, but it certainly seems more likely than the Democrats dropping their unwavering support for Israel.
There have always been armed militias targeting the federal government. You know who those armed militias support for President? You know which candidate would welcome those armed militias?
I don’t disagree, homey. Seems like the militias are going to be a growing problem regardless of the election. What we disagree on here is the solution.
For me, the solution is for the Dems to call the genocide what it is and force a ceasefire.
I’m not judging people for pulling the only lever the US system gives them. I don’t advocate for voting for Trump and don’t recommend anyone does, but I do understand how some people might choose to vote against the people who are currently bombing them with the hope that the only other option won’t.
You seem to be rare, on the online left.
If Trump wins, there will certainly be a revolution. But probably not the kind you’re looking for.
I don’t think continuation of the ever-worsening status quo counts as a revolution
What about Trump could possibly make you think that he would continue the status quo in any way, shape or form? He already publically said he would turn the military on anyone who opposed him.
We also know how he feels about anyone who isn’t a straight, white, Christian male, so how anyone arrives at the conclusion that things wouldn’t be catastrophically worse for everyone outside that demographic is a complete mystery to me.
I’m tired of the argument here that voting for a third party will make some sort of positive statement, so just do what you have to do. When Trump wins and starts deporting (or worse) Muslims currently in this country, they can all go see if Jill Stein will save them. The status quo sucks, but it’s also a lot harder to campaign for change after they’ve been expelled from the country.
For what it’s worth, I am 100% against the genocide in Gaza and I want the bombs to stop being delivered. However, it’s easier to rally and protest for change without someone aspiring to be a dictator in power.
America is a dying empire, that is the status quo.
We also know that the dems haven’t been protecting anyone from republicans.
Big talk for someone arguing against protesting for change.
They say that every time, and people are fooled each new election. The US system is not a democracy, but it’s really good at convincing it’s citizens that they live in one.
Who the fuck said anything about Trump? Not sure why you think people dying from American bombs give a fuck about who sent them.
Can you crawl out of your narrow worldview for just a second and recognize that real people are experiencing a real genocide?
That’s not some Russian propaganda spin either, but recognized by the ICJ.
I agree there’s a horrific genocide taking place, aided by the USA, and all Americans should be ashamed of this. But to be fair, the headline indicates these voters will vote against Harris. Either that’s a vote for Trump or a vote for a third party. Either way it increases trump’s likelihood of being elected.
Ok? There’s a simple solution here for the democrats.
Let’s not engage in victim blaming here and recognize who has power to end this and who is exercising their right to express their profound and utter disappointment in a political system that is, at best, ambivalent to their suffering.
Democrats chose this hill to die on, not the voters.
You know what it’s called when voters aren’t allowed to vote for the candidate they desire?
No, it’s the voters. You can’t just forever blame your garbage decisions on other people.
Ah yes, my decision to continue funding paramilitaries in the West Bank.
That I definitely made.
Who the fuck said I don’t believe there’s a genocide going on?
calling it the “Israel-Gaza crisis” implies equivalence. As somebody else notes, not using the word genocide is also a strong signal that you don’t believe it’s a genocide. Finally, you used “lol” when talking about a genocide. In short, all evidence in your message suggests that you do not take it seriously.
If the point of your comment isn’t to minimize suffering and mock people for their political choice, then what is the point of your comment?
So the two realistic options are Trump and Harris. You do realize Netanyahu wants Trump to win, correct? You do realize Trump isn’t going to do a damn thing except attempt to install himself as God Emperor of the US if he’s elected while utterly ignoring all outside politics, yes? So by not voting for Kamala, that’s what you’re signalling you’re ok with.
Harris has at least signaled she is willing to consider forcing Isreal to some sort of negotiation table. Although neither side is going to say anything particularly inflammatory ahead of the election because… AIPAC, who has literally thrown millions at any candidate that has spoken out against them pre-election.
Homey, she’s vice president today. If she gave a fuck, we wouldn’t be where we are.