even if she did, which she won’t, at this point it’s probably too little too late tbh. I hope all the moderate republicans she courted were worth it.
If Kamala wants to be the First Ever FEMALE US President while ALSO Saving us from the Second Coming of Hitler all she has to do is Denounce Genocide?
Well we had a Good Run!
Nah, it’s too late for that. She could do a 180 on everything she said she supports but we all know it’s election year politics and that none of it is true.
Nah, she also has to promise not to continue enabling this genocide. Obviously an absolute no-go.
She won’t. She never will. That’s America’s spoiled baby. Both parties are Zionists. haven’t you heard her weasely “I’ll ensure there is peace and a two states solution” which means “I will absolutely do nothing but send more money weapons to Israel”?
The “two-state solution” has always been a comprador-negotiated position to establish Bantustans and the Zionists won’t even implement that because they are too bust doing land grabs and genocide.
The only liberatory solution is a single state without apartheid.
They’ve purposefully keep trying to make the two state solution impossible. I hope it bites them one day, making a one-state solution where everyone can live in there peacefully and equally the only option.
So long as the resistance fights it is certainly backfiring in that way. Though I forgot to mention that Zionist settlers never really planned to establish two states, they wanted an expansionist status quo and are getting it. But if they ever actually advocated for two states and worked on it, it would be as Bantustans. Zionists could never tolerate Palestinians as equal neighbors on “their” land.
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Breaks Community Rules
Time already ran out. Her opportunity to performatively appeal to the voters that consider Palestinians to be people (PS if you vote for Harris that is not you) was at the DNC and she snubbed them and then insulted them by having an Israeli speak.
I think Palestinians are people and don’t deserve a genocide, and I am voting for Harris
These are incompatible statements.
Voting for 3rd party helps trump win which means even more genocide so “voting against genocide” is actually voting for more genocide
Voting for genociders means supporting their genocide. Not voting for genociders means not supporting genocide.
Might want to check your math there, chief.
Well sorry but that’s not how logic works
Our givens are:
- Trump or Harris will win the White House
- There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can’t win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House
=> Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
=> The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
=> Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
=> Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
=> Voting “against genocide” is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it) and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
If you had a different voting system I’d agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don’t have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism. So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
Sorry for shoddy formatting I don’t quite know how to fix it.
Well sorry but that’s not how logic works
It is, actually. It’s very simple: I don’t support genocide so I don’t vote for genociders. Perfectly logical. Despite your condescension, you have yet to point out a flaw in my logic, though you are making inaccurate statements about my positron.
Our givens are:
- Trump or Harris will win the White House
- There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can’t win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House
You have already failed to capture the basics of voting. You can also vote for other parties, write in a name in some states, and simply not vote on that line or at all. For such a condescending response we aren’t even cracking high school civics territory yet. But you are revealing that you follow current party line talking points. The party in power, doing the genocide. Bad look, there.
Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
Questionable. Manic JOYous appropriating genocidal neoliberal cop that gets no resistance from people like yourself vs. fading racist grandpa huckster that you presumably at least performatively might do something against.
The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
Wrong. Many who vote third party have never considered themselves Democrats. Most Americans do not identify with either party.
Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
Dems shouldn’t commit genocide.
Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
Trump would benefit specifically from votes (in swing states) for himself and a lack of votes (in swing states) for Harris. This can come from a number of premises but sure one of them is that someone that had planned to vote Harris votes for Stein instead. Thank you for this deep insight.
Voting "against genocide
Oh? Is it not a genocide? Is the Biden-Harrus administration not an essential piece of it? Why the scare quotes, liberal?
is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it)
Genocide is the systematic destruction of a people, it is as bad as it gets. There is no meaningful difference than the status quo and anything Trump could “accelerate”. You aren’t going to lesser evil genocide. Your genocider is also actually genociding, which should always be opposed, including compared to your hypotheticals. I could expound on how your framing is politically illiterate, including your normalization of genocide, but really this is not a complex situation.
and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
To the extent that is true, it’s already happening under Dems. They just pander to those groups at the same time they reinforce reaction and marginalization.
If you had a different voting system I’d agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don’t have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism.
Wait, that’s it!? I thought you were going to show me logic, not a series of barely-connected talking points. You didn’t discuss the voting system!
Anyways I am correct regardless of the voting system. Though I will note that I have told you not to vote for genociders. I did not tell you to vote third party. I’m setting up a very low bar but liberals are so pro-genocide that they tend to fall to clear it.
So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
That would be silly, as I would have voted for neither genocidal candidate. Blame yourself for normalizing genocide. For accepting a genocidal candidate. For advocating for a genocidal candidate during their genocide. Do you see how obviously complicit this makes you? I work against all of those things. Your “logic”, which is to say bog standard lesser evil tropes, has gotten you to flip reality on its head.
I could expound on this topic but you would need to express curiosity or present a coherent case.
Only to someone who can’t see past a single issue and whose understanding of a complex situation is full of disinformation and bad-faith assumptions.
But sure. Pretend that’s a rational position.
No, it is true regsr of that. But the single issue is genocide, which is why you decided to be euphemistic about it.
”Nuh-uh!”
Do you find this to be an effective debate tactic?
And I was making a general statement, not referencing you specifically. More bad-faith assumptions and disinformation, now coming directly from you.
”Nuh-uh!”
Do you find this to be an effective debate tactic?
You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic. Telling you that it’s wrong is sufficient, yes. I did not invite you to expound on it because you were already adopting defensive posturing.
Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made. Let me remind you: the alleged single issue is genocide and I surmise you are reticent to speak openly about it because you know just how awful your dismissiveness of it will sound. But rather than confront such an inconsistency, liberals will paper over it. If they didn’t do that, they might cease being liberals.
You should not support genociders.
And I was making a general statement, not referencing you specifically.
My response works either way and I didn’t assume you meant me specifically. I am not sure what you are even referring to here. I made no references to myself.
More bad-faith assumptions and disinformation, now coming directly from you.
We are now having discourse about something you have apparently imagined and how I am various bad things in this imaginary scenario. Please return to reality and engage with what I actually say rather than making up quotes and ignoring half of what I say.
You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic
Not liking my comment doesn’t make me wrong, and the “conclusions” you draw are obvious proof that you’re in no position to criticize the “logic” of others.
And I don’t need your permission to comment here. If you’re too scared of your comments being scrutinized, perhaps you should post your comments on the wall of a toilet stall rather than to a public forum.
Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made
That was your point. I summarized. Again, of you don’t like being scrutinized, don’t post in a public forum.
It’s cute how you blame others for your own actions, even when you have to make the reasons up by pretending to be psychic and reading my mind.
Yet, somehow, you still act like this is a rational position…
The other candidate will put you in prison for that wrong think and send EVEN MORE aid.
You should not support Hitler just because you think Goebbels is worse. You should work against both genociders, not be an advocate for one.
We need STAR instead of FPTP so everyone can vote their conscience.
Bourgeois democracy is incapable of substantially opposing capitalism, the capitalists will just pull a capital strike and hire thugs and PR people etc etc. Countries that voted in socialists found themselves, and particularly their left parties, under terrorist attacks and faced coups. Some outright banned anticapitalist parties. If you do not organize and arm yourselves, you will simply get murdered en masse.
But if alternative voting systems inspire you, I do encourage you to get involved IRL in organizing efforts. This will teach you a subset of organizing skills that are more widely applicable. You will get to see the patterns of your opponents, too. Of our opponents.
But I also recommend reading widely and critically, to challenge yourself with the material histories of left organizing and, even more importantly, its failures. Who fought us. Who won. What is GLADIO. Who is Suharto. What happened to Allende and why. What happened to the pan-Africanists, the pan-Arabs. Why is the US left so anemic? Why are the European “communist” parties so liberal? Etc etc.
Gonna be hard to work against anything when you’ve been executed for knowing a trans person and not reporting them.
Hitler talked about helping the “Volk” while supporting the system that kept them subservient to capital. The analogy here is not exact, but Democrat politicians are not exactly real trans advocates even if individuals sometimes are. He’ll they allow big, loud transphobes to have plenty of voice in their party, they are courtkng Republicans, lauding endorsements from reactionary war criminals. As in the UK, trans people are on th3 chopping block of this faux-progressive party and it is extraparty advocacy that really keeps things afloat.
Work locally to support trans people. Build mutual aid networks, build groups that do direct action, make unions pro-trans, protect events that normalize being trans. Kamala Harris isn’t doing shot for trans people except appropriation and a smile while yelling you that the naked transohkbia rampant in the party and everyday life is just the price you pay for freedom: or else.
You are correct.
and I would prefer to keep gays, trans, and women alive while we work at the local level in the meantime.
Voting for Kid Killer Kamala ain’t doing that. And there is no meantime, organizing requires your help right now.
Oh so you think i should vote for Trump who will kill them himself?
