By the way: Voting isn't actually support. The American system is not set up in a way where votes actually add to the power of the Presidential office. On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action, which could be genocide. This means YOU HAVE TO VOTE HARRIS IN ORDER TO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. The socialism angels are hypocrites.
there are two facts about this election
there are only two outcomes—0.0% chance for a third party win
both candidates have a bad stance on the genocide
so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?
my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have... which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
Harris might be responsive, and let's be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it's definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?
which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
i only voted for kamala because she's a woman and even though she's an awful candidate at least we can get it out of our collective system, show little girls they can be president, and the neoliberal status quo is probably still better than Trump
i'm not entirely sure on that because I think Kamala is more likely to lead us into a war with Russia.. but Trump is more volatile in general I think
Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing. there's been so many women throughout history that could have been judith pulgars, politically speaking, and ended up getting pushed into more subservient positions
that's the main reason. i dont think that's an awful reason
as for the russian war thing, i rather like living in a pre-nuclear-war society.
It just implies that looking at the candidates the biggest and most important difference you see is that one is a woman.
Like, it's great that you did vote for that woman as she also happens to be in favour of women having rights, lgbtq+ people having rights, doesn't want mass deportions, still wants there to be elections in the future and a painfully long list of stark differences like that. It's just impressive that none of that mattered to you, or that you are unaware of it
i'm more cynical about her. it's not that i don't think gay rights and women rights aren't important. they are. but to me, the primary issues i care about, in order of importance
a) probability of war
b) attitude towards immigrants
c) economic position
d) foreign policy in general
so for example I think Kamala is probably more likely to get us into war than Trump is. That gives points to Trump.
on the immigration front, I don't have any illusions about where the national conversation is going. I was brought here to this country illegally as a small child. I grew up here illegal and it wasn't until my early 20s that I managed to naturalize
so i've been embedded in immigrant communities, with a lot of illegals sprinkled in, and have been paying attention to immigration news for virtually all of life
i can only think of two politicians who have done something meaningful for illegals. Reagan and Obama. Reagan of course gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Obama enacted the DACA policy, which wasn't nearly as broad as amnesty, but it was definitely a good thing that helped hundreds of thousands of people. but "immigration reform" has been promised my whole life by DNC and never delivered. best was the half-assed DACA
But let's look at rhetoric from Biden. During campaign in 2020 he advocated for a "compassionate approach" and was "pushing for immigration reform". he promised to halt the construction of "the Wall tm"
What about the last couple years? He expanded construction of the wall which he timed with a photoshoot with Customs and Border Patrol at the southern border. He also went on TV and started using the word illegal - which is a term Democrats historically haven't used. I don't think it's offensive or anything- but it's telling to show how the overton window has sharply been shoved to the right
Now look at Biden's successor - Kamala - the woman I voted for begrudgingly. go to her website and look at the policies and you will see zilch about compassionate approach or immigration reform. today it's "security and strong border"
right now over 65% of all Americans (not just GOP) support deporting all illegal immigrants. Something absurd to say even a decade ago. Majority of Americans support a policy which would effectively have the military going around house to house in order to put over 10 million people in camps, which they would stay at for years while the government tries to figure out the complex and expensive logistical challenge of moving millions of people out of the country (Germans had this same problem back in first half of the 1900s. they came up with a controversial solution to that question, of course)
so i'm not saying kamala is equal or worse than trump on this. trump is partly at fault for the rise in this change. but i think long term it won't make a difference who wins in this field. either way immigrants are screwed, so it doesn't really matter to me in this election
economic position, i think not gonna matter much. the whole "tax breaks for first time homeowners" from Kamala is yet another bailout to the banks at the expense of regular people. Trump put in sanctions on China, raising prices for Americans... Biden kept them in place and put some more. I don't think this is much different. the reductionist "tax the rich" is a nice slogan but without meaning. as long as the government has a money tap funneling public money to leeches, no amount of taxes will ever filter down to help the working class
foreign policy in general. again, i don't see much of a difference. china from above is a good example. iran is another. Obama actually came up with a revolutionary deal- bringing the Iranians back into the fold. Trump torpedoed that deal in spectacular fashion and then moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. Biden maintained the "get fucked" attitude towards Iran and went to Tel Aviv in Oct of last year to bend the knee to Netanyahu.
so to summarize
for the issues i mentioned, which are the ones that matter to me, i think long term the choice of candidate isn't going to influence anything significantly either way. the zietgiest is headed in a certain direction and i don't think either candidate has the capacity or willingness to meaningfully change the course of things
so then we get to why did i vote for kamala. because I think it'll be inspiring to girls and women across the country. it'll implicitly let them know they are equal and are able to accomplish anything, even the highest office in the country
i think that alone is worth voting for her. and of course Trump is a bit of a wild card and I prefer stability.
To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war. Trump pretty much plans to roll over and give people like Putin whatever they want.
So you have a bit of a point there, but again in the worst way
How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps
Thanks for explaining your reasoning, and lucky that the woman wasn't the fascist this time like in France or Italy
How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps
i guess i didn't communicate my message well enough. it's not that they are equal. it's that I think they are both equally impotent to stop the march of the zeitgeist.
if you fast forward 10 or 15 years, i don't think it'll matter which president wins next week- in terms of immigration. people are inevitably going into camps, no matter what, at this point in time.
One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps
it's done "bureaucratically" instead of "cruelly" but I dare you to try and explain the difference to a scared 6 year old
i hate trump because of his racist comments. but i hate biden and kamala too. at least trump doesn't pretend to care- would you prefer someone abusing you to be honest about it or gaslight you? is it really a meaningful choice?
To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war
this is frankly a reductionist take. the situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. if anything, Biden's approach of milquetoast risk-aversion is probably closer to Chamberlain than a hypothetical Trump presidency would be
consider why the US doesn't allow Ukraine to use American weapons in Russia. consider why US aid is limited to just enough to keep Ukraine alive. consider why the US has been openly pumping untold millions into Ukraine under the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy since the early 90s (and almost certainly many millions covertly, too)
this is a proxy war for control of Ukraine. if you were to make an analogy to WW2 it would be more Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland
I don't think we'll agree on immigration. In my eyes the proven track reckord of Trump should be ebought to make it obvious, but you don't agree and I doubt I can say anything that would be more convincing than the pervious Trump administration
this is frankly a reductionist take. the situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. if anything, Biden’s approach of milquetoast risk-aversion is probably closer to Chamberlain than a hypothetical Trump presidency would be
Have you looked into what Trump is proposing on Ukraine? He does keep it vague, perhaps to allow people to imagine freely like you do here, but he keeps talking about negotiating a peace, which in itself is a stark difference from say Biden who seems to think that such things are up to Ukraine, being a sovereign nation and all.
Of course you can imagine any policy you want, as trump isn't being clear, but the fact that he refuses to be clear on this should be a signal in itself. Another signal should be that Nato leadership and Europe are making moves to insulate the support of Ukraine against a Trump win. A third signal should be how desperately Russia seems to want Trump to win.
consider why the US doesn’t allow Ukraine to use American weapons in Russia. consider why US aid is limited to just enough to keep Ukraine alive. consider why the US has been openly pumping untold millions into Ukraine under the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy since the early 90s (and almost certainly many millions covertly, too)
I don't understand your point here. Are you implying that Russia was justified in invading Ukraine because they were getting economic support from the US? Poland was too after the fall of the soviet union, so I guess they're next?
this is a proxy war for control of Ukraine. if you were to make an analogy to WW2 it would be more Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland
The war in Ukraine is not a civil war. It is a sovereign european nation being invaded by russia to expand their territory, much like poland during ww2.
war in Ukraine is not a civil war
The war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Where the pro-Russian government got ousted in a violent coup/revolution/uprising (what you call it depends on what you believe). The pro-Russian president had to flee the country.
Then a new government was quickly appointed, unconstitutionally, and that government is the current one. That administration was made up of far right leaders (think people like Andriy Biletsky). This administration immediately started cooperating with the CIA the very first day.
Then Russia invaded Crimea and started the covert operation in Donbas a few days after that.
It's more complicated than saying it's an invasion of a sovereign nation. It's not a civil war either, you are right. But I think it's closer to the Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland.
Really it's: a coup triggered a war of independence against Russia. Ukraine was firmly in Russian sphere from 91 until 2014. Once that stopped being true, Russia invaded.
But I like to think of the Spanish Civil War because it's the proxy war before the war. It's a place for big powers to test new technologies. Get ready for the inevitable showdown.
Ukraine was a sovereign state globally recognised as such, including by Russia. It's not a war of independence against Russia anymore that Poland had a war of independence against Germany in 1939
This is russian propaganda revisionism, and if you're arguing in good faith I can only advise you to make a serious inventory of what sources of news and information you consume
japan is a sovereign nation too. one that doesn't get to decide whether a foreign power from across the pacific ocean gets to park military bases in their land.
there's a long spectrum from totally under control -> totally independent and you will find that virtually every smaller country is rarely totally independent
i'd like to challenge you and show me one thing i said that was false. it's easy to throw shade say something like "everything you are saying is because you have fallen for propaganda, whereas me I am pure and untouched by propaganda"
russia was content with Ukraine being loosely coupled. They were not OK with Ukraine totally leaving the Russian sphere and joining the west. this is what triggered the invasion of Crimea and the little green men from the east.
you can see a similar, albiet different, dynamic with Taiwan and China. China is content (for now) with Taiwan remaining sort-of independent. but once the US for example says something "Taiwan is an independent country" they would invade.
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing.
I agree with that, and its long overdue, but if she fumbles badly she may set everything backward.
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
This level of cynicism is unwarranted. Sure it might be low, but for Harris it's at least 0.1%.
with the current stranglehold the pro-Israeli lobby has on American politics (includes both GOP and DNC) even 0.1% is a stretch
98% of AIPAC endorsed candidates won their election in 2022. if you are a politician and you say something mildly critical of Israel they will go to war with you and do everything so that your opponent wins
Israel has figured out how to hack American democracy. There is no going back at this point. We are a pro-Israel country for the foreseeable future, regardless of which candidate wins this election or the next one or the next one
My argument is that the only good american is that dude who set himself on fire. You are a scumbag. You are no better than a german in the 30ies smelling the grilled flesh and thinking "this is fine, it's still better than bolchevism"
lol I'm not an American, go Bolshevik yourself
You think you are not
you're going dumber with every comment.
You are americanized, what can I say? You are either german, british or from a commonwealth country. I'm betting my left balls.
wrong again, Bob. you can keep the balls though; no one's gonna make use of them anyway.
Surprising. Then why do you support the liberals? They are the one doing the genocide. They are the one who created trump. They are the two-parties oligarchy. Good cop/bad cop. The carrot and the stick.
Why do you support american imperialism? If you are not from those 3 they probably murdered left-wing politicians in your country or sponsored fascists or something. Why are you a yanksucker?
It's even worst, actually. They at least have the excuse of being braiwashed all the fucking time. You do not.
I'm not supporting anything. as i spelled out in a way i mistakenly thought even a braindead toddler would understand, there are only two possible outcomes to this election. You either vote for one or the other. Because it's only two outcomes, not voting or voting third party still contributes to one of these two. That's the system as it currently stands.
If you aren't even American then shut the fuck up. You don't really grasp how complex the politics actually are.
They're really not though. You literally have two options and one is so obviously worse
You really think we don't understand your politics even though we see them being discussed every day all day online and they affect us all the time? I happen to have Mr. Putin as my neighbor, and if that orange shithead wins the election on the other side of the pond, I'm fucked. You Yanks really seem to underestimate the effect your politics have on the entire world and how invested everyone else is in them.
We do understand it pretty well. Sincerely, an ex-Hungarian.
Fuck off you're saying mean things :'(* whine whine*
Nobody cares about your internal politics. Your external politics is always the same and seeing all of you idiots saying "BOTH SIDE ARE FOR GENOCIDE" leads to the conclusion you people have zero ethical consideration at all. You know, since you are overtly voting for extermination... again.
Fuck off
If there's anybody this election cycle shows us, it's that americans do not care about foreigners life at all. They would gladly throw entire countries under the bus if it means that they get to keep living their comfortable life putting their little ballot like cowards instead of actually fighting fascism.
"Vote for the candidate who will continue to fund a genocide to show you dont support genocide "
Man yall will do anything to avoid a socialist movement.
I see what you're trying to do drag but it just doesn't track.
What they think their vote contributes to:
Voting isn’t actually support
On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action
Interesting. So, by drag's logic, a Trump voter isn't responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.
It's amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y'all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.
Fuck off drag. The US dems are guilty of extermination and everybody who vote in this election are complicit. You can call them to throw foreigners under the bus for their own gain and security, since they are bullying people to vote for the genocide party just because the other side said they were gonna be worst.
When somebody commit a crime, you punish this person, you dont give them power because some other dude talked shit.
Don't support genocide, it's as simple as that!
Just say whatever the fuck you want while you do whatever the fuck you want, it's as simple as that!
Then do not call to vote for the exact people who committed it.
Don't support genocide, it's as simple as that!
By the way: Voting isn't actually support. The American system is not set up in a way where votes actually add to the power of the Presidential office. On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action, which could be genocide. This means YOU HAVE TO VOTE HARRIS IN ORDER TO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE. The socialism angels are hypocrites.
there are two facts about this election
so neither outcome will help with the genocide. acting like voting third party helps in any way shape or form is disingenuous at best. so what should you do?
my argument is that you should vote for the person you can hope to convince on this issue. phone calls, protests, social media, whatever means you have... which of these candidates is more likely to respond to any kind of public pressure about this?
Harris might be responsive, and let's be honest, she might not be. but you know for a fact that it's definitely not the fucking orange turd. Natenyahu wants him to win. how can you ignore that?
neither. 0.0% chance for either candidate.
i only voted for kamala because she's a woman and even though she's an awful candidate at least we can get it out of our collective system, show little girls they can be president, and the neoliberal status quo is probably still better than Trump
i'm not entirely sure on that because I think Kamala is more likely to lead us into a war with Russia.. but Trump is more volatile in general I think
Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful
i think breaking the barrier of sex in terms of male/female president is a powerful thing. there's been so many women throughout history that could have been judith pulgars, politically speaking, and ended up getting pushed into more subservient positions
that's the main reason. i dont think that's an awful reason
as for the russian war thing, i rather like living in a pre-nuclear-war society.
It just implies that looking at the candidates the biggest and most important difference you see is that one is a woman.
Like, it's great that you did vote for that woman as she also happens to be in favour of women having rights, lgbtq+ people having rights, doesn't want mass deportions, still wants there to be elections in the future and a painfully long list of stark differences like that. It's just impressive that none of that mattered to you, or that you are unaware of it
i'm more cynical about her. it's not that i don't think gay rights and women rights aren't important. they are. but to me, the primary issues i care about, in order of importance
a) probability of war
b) attitude towards immigrants
c) economic position
d) foreign policy in general
so for example I think Kamala is probably more likely to get us into war than Trump is. That gives points to Trump.
on the immigration front, I don't have any illusions about where the national conversation is going. I was brought here to this country illegally as a small child. I grew up here illegal and it wasn't until my early 20s that I managed to naturalize
so i've been embedded in immigrant communities, with a lot of illegals sprinkled in, and have been paying attention to immigration news for virtually all of life
i can only think of two politicians who have done something meaningful for illegals. Reagan and Obama. Reagan of course gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Obama enacted the DACA policy, which wasn't nearly as broad as amnesty, but it was definitely a good thing that helped hundreds of thousands of people. but "immigration reform" has been promised my whole life by DNC and never delivered. best was the half-assed DACA
But let's look at rhetoric from Biden. During campaign in 2020 he advocated for a "compassionate approach" and was "pushing for immigration reform". he promised to halt the construction of "the Wall tm"
What about the last couple years? He expanded construction of the wall which he timed with a photoshoot with Customs and Border Patrol at the southern border. He also went on TV and started using the word illegal - which is a term Democrats historically haven't used. I don't think it's offensive or anything- but it's telling to show how the overton window has sharply been shoved to the right
Now look at Biden's successor - Kamala - the woman I voted for begrudgingly. go to her website and look at the policies and you will see zilch about compassionate approach or immigration reform. today it's "security and strong border"
right now over 65% of all Americans (not just GOP) support deporting all illegal immigrants. Something absurd to say even a decade ago. Majority of Americans support a policy which would effectively have the military going around house to house in order to put over 10 million people in camps, which they would stay at for years while the government tries to figure out the complex and expensive logistical challenge of moving millions of people out of the country (Germans had this same problem back in first half of the 1900s. they came up with a controversial solution to that question, of course)
so i'm not saying kamala is equal or worse than trump on this. trump is partly at fault for the rise in this change. but i think long term it won't make a difference who wins in this field. either way immigrants are screwed, so it doesn't really matter to me in this election
economic position, i think not gonna matter much. the whole "tax breaks for first time homeowners" from Kamala is yet another bailout to the banks at the expense of regular people. Trump put in sanctions on China, raising prices for Americans... Biden kept them in place and put some more. I don't think this is much different. the reductionist "tax the rich" is a nice slogan but without meaning. as long as the government has a money tap funneling public money to leeches, no amount of taxes will ever filter down to help the working class
foreign policy in general. again, i don't see much of a difference. china from above is a good example. iran is another. Obama actually came up with a revolutionary deal- bringing the Iranians back into the fold. Trump torpedoed that deal in spectacular fashion and then moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. Biden maintained the "get fucked" attitude towards Iran and went to Tel Aviv in Oct of last year to bend the knee to Netanyahu.
so to summarize
for the issues i mentioned, which are the ones that matter to me, i think long term the choice of candidate isn't going to influence anything significantly either way. the zietgiest is headed in a certain direction and i don't think either candidate has the capacity or willingness to meaningfully change the course of things
so then we get to why did i vote for kamala. because I think it'll be inspiring to girls and women across the country. it'll implicitly let them know they are equal and are able to accomplish anything, even the highest office in the country
i think that alone is worth voting for her. and of course Trump is a bit of a wild card and I prefer stability.
To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war. Trump pretty much plans to roll over and give people like Putin whatever they want.
So you have a bit of a point there, but again in the worst way
How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps
Thanks for explaining your reasoning, and lucky that the woman wasn't the fascist this time like in France or Italy
i guess i didn't communicate my message well enough. it's not that they are equal. it's that I think they are both equally impotent to stop the march of the zeitgeist.
if you fast forward 10 or 15 years, i don't think it'll matter which president wins next week- in terms of immigration. people are inevitably going into camps, no matter what, at this point in time.
remember that Biden continued using Trump's illegal loopholes to refuse asylum to people at the border, breaking both US and international law, while also still separating kids: https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2024/07/29/report-reveals-migrant-family-separations-continue-under-biden
it's done "bureaucratically" instead of "cruelly" but I dare you to try and explain the difference to a scared 6 year old
i hate trump because of his racist comments. but i hate biden and kamala too. at least trump doesn't pretend to care- would you prefer someone abusing you to be honest about it or gaslight you? is it really a meaningful choice?
this is frankly a reductionist take. the situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. if anything, Biden's approach of milquetoast risk-aversion is probably closer to Chamberlain than a hypothetical Trump presidency would be
consider why the US doesn't allow Ukraine to use American weapons in Russia. consider why US aid is limited to just enough to keep Ukraine alive. consider why the US has been openly pumping untold millions into Ukraine under the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy since the early 90s (and almost certainly many millions covertly, too)
this is a proxy war for control of Ukraine. if you were to make an analogy to WW2 it would be more Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland
I don't think we'll agree on immigration. In my eyes the proven track reckord of Trump should be ebought to make it obvious, but you don't agree and I doubt I can say anything that would be more convincing than the pervious Trump administration
Have you looked into what Trump is proposing on Ukraine? He does keep it vague, perhaps to allow people to imagine freely like you do here, but he keeps talking about negotiating a peace, which in itself is a stark difference from say Biden who seems to think that such things are up to Ukraine, being a sovereign nation and all.
Here's a more concrete proposal on the Trump side: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-reviews-plan-halt-us-military-aid-ukraine-unless-it-negotiates-peace-with-2024-06-25/
Of course you can imagine any policy you want, as trump isn't being clear, but the fact that he refuses to be clear on this should be a signal in itself. Another signal should be that Nato leadership and Europe are making moves to insulate the support of Ukraine against a Trump win. A third signal should be how desperately Russia seems to want Trump to win.
I don't understand your point here. Are you implying that Russia was justified in invading Ukraine because they were getting economic support from the US? Poland was too after the fall of the soviet union, so I guess they're next?
The war in Ukraine is not a civil war. It is a sovereign european nation being invaded by russia to expand their territory, much like poland during ww2.
The war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Where the pro-Russian government got ousted in a violent coup/revolution/uprising (what you call it depends on what you believe). The pro-Russian president had to flee the country.
Then a new government was quickly appointed, unconstitutionally, and that government is the current one. That administration was made up of far right leaders (think people like Andriy Biletsky). This administration immediately started cooperating with the CIA the very first day.
Then Russia invaded Crimea and started the covert operation in Donbas a few days after that.
It's more complicated than saying it's an invasion of a sovereign nation. It's not a civil war either, you are right. But I think it's closer to the Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland.
Really it's: a coup triggered a war of independence against Russia. Ukraine was firmly in Russian sphere from 91 until 2014. Once that stopped being true, Russia invaded.
But I like to think of the Spanish Civil War because it's the proxy war before the war. It's a place for big powers to test new technologies. Get ready for the inevitable showdown.
Ukraine was a sovereign state globally recognised as such, including by Russia. It's not a war of independence against Russia anymore that Poland had a war of independence against Germany in 1939
This is russian propaganda revisionism, and if you're arguing in good faith I can only advise you to make a serious inventory of what sources of news and information you consume
japan is a sovereign nation too. one that doesn't get to decide whether a foreign power from across the pacific ocean gets to park military bases in their land.
there's a long spectrum from totally under control -> totally independent and you will find that virtually every smaller country is rarely totally independent
i'd like to challenge you and show me one thing i said that was false. it's easy to throw shade say something like "everything you are saying is because you have fallen for propaganda, whereas me I am pure and untouched by propaganda"
russia was content with Ukraine being loosely coupled. They were not OK with Ukraine totally leaving the Russian sphere and joining the west. this is what triggered the invasion of Crimea and the little green men from the east.
you can see a similar, albiet different, dynamic with Taiwan and China. China is content (for now) with Taiwan remaining sort-of independent. but once the US for example says something "Taiwan is an independent country" they would invade.
I agree with that, and its long overdue, but if she fumbles badly she may set everything backward.
This level of cynicism is unwarranted. Sure it might be low, but for Harris it's at least 0.1%.
with the current stranglehold the pro-Israeli lobby has on American politics (includes both GOP and DNC) even 0.1% is a stretch
AIPAC even brags about it: https://aipacorg.app.box.com/s/t8vvqt7evxvgkzn5jktpwejate6oxo0y
98% of AIPAC endorsed candidates won their election in 2022. if you are a politician and you say something mildly critical of Israel they will go to war with you and do everything so that your opponent wins
Israel has figured out how to hack American democracy. There is no going back at this point. We are a pro-Israel country for the foreseeable future, regardless of which candidate wins this election or the next one or the next one
My argument is that the only good american is that dude who set himself on fire. You are a scumbag. You are no better than a german in the 30ies smelling the grilled flesh and thinking "this is fine, it's still better than bolchevism"
lol I'm not an American, go Bolshevik yourself
You think you are not
you're going dumber with every comment.
You are americanized, what can I say? You are either german, british or from a commonwealth country. I'm betting my left balls.
So, your stakes in this "bet" are zero? Cool.
wrong again, Bob. you can keep the balls though; no one's gonna make use of them anyway.
Surprising. Then why do you support the liberals? They are the one doing the genocide. They are the one who created trump. They are the two-parties oligarchy. Good cop/bad cop. The carrot and the stick.
Why do you support american imperialism? If you are not from those 3 they probably murdered left-wing politicians in your country or sponsored fascists or something. Why are you a yanksucker?
It's even worst, actually. They at least have the excuse of being braiwashed all the fucking time. You do not.
I'm not supporting anything. as i spelled out in a way i mistakenly thought even a braindead toddler would understand, there are only two possible outcomes to this election. You either vote for one or the other. Because it's only two outcomes, not voting or voting third party still contributes to one of these two. That's the system as it currently stands.
If you aren't even American then shut the fuck up. You don't really grasp how complex the politics actually are.
They're really not though. You literally have two options and one is so obviously worse
You really think we don't understand your politics even though we see them being discussed every day all day online and they affect us all the time? I happen to have Mr. Putin as my neighbor, and if that orange shithead wins the election on the other side of the pond, I'm fucked. You Yanks really seem to underestimate the effect your politics have on the entire world and how invested everyone else is in them.
We do understand it pretty well. Sincerely, an ex-Hungarian.
Fuck off you're saying mean things :'(* whine whine*
Nobody cares about your internal politics. Your external politics is always the same and seeing all of you idiots saying "BOTH SIDE ARE FOR GENOCIDE" leads to the conclusion you people have zero ethical consideration at all. You know, since you are overtly voting for extermination... again.
Fuck off
If there's anybody this election cycle shows us, it's that americans do not care about foreigners life at all. They would gladly throw entire countries under the bus if it means that they get to keep living their comfortable life putting their little ballot like cowards instead of actually fighting fascism.
Don’t support genocide, it’s as simple as that!
"Vote for the candidate who will continue to fund a genocide to show you dont support genocide "
Man yall will do anything to avoid a socialist movement.
I see what you're trying to do drag but it just doesn't track.
What they think their vote contributes to:
Interesting. So, by drag's logic, a Trump voter isn't responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.
It's amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y'all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.
Fuck off drag. The US dems are guilty of extermination and everybody who vote in this election are complicit. You can call them to throw foreigners under the bus for their own gain and security, since they are bullying people to vote for the genocide party just because the other side said they were gonna be worst.
When somebody commit a crime, you punish this person, you dont give them power because some other dude talked shit.
Don't support genocide, it's as simple as that!
Just say whatever the fuck you want while you do whatever the fuck you want, it's as simple as that!
Then do not call to vote for the exact people who committed it.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-made-weapons-used-by-government-of-israel-in-violation-of-international-law-and-u-s-law/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091