Not depicted, cool guy smoking cigarettes with thought bubble: “I did nothing to change this but post memes to Lemmy”
It can only be changed by liberals waking up
Really cuz this meme seems to suggest they should sleep through election day
That would probably be the most woke thing they could do, if the only alternative to voting democrat is to completely check out.
Thanks for confirming. Get out of my replies
Use the block button, dumbass
Removed by mod
Why?
there’s more than 2 parties you can vote for and the meme shows why the 2 dominant parties are no different where it matters.
Yep and you can write in your dog’s name too. That as as much chance of changing things.
Because doing the same thing we always do, which is how we’ve come to this point, will definitely change this this time… As opposed to trying literally anything else, which, since we’ve never tried to do it, we can with complete certainty say will not work.
Brilliant reasoning you got there.
I actually think things are uniquely bad right now for my lifetime and were made worse by Ralph nader voters like you
Yes things have been getting worse for a long time now. You know what I’m sure will help? If we keep doing the thing we’ve been doing all the while things have been getting worse.
Which is still far more chance of changing things than you get by voting more power to the people actively opposed to changing anything that benefits their donors.
Except that isn’t true. By ceding your choice, you enable the worse outcome. That’s fine by you thought because really you’re an accelerationist above all else. Hasten the burn, you want to pickup the ashes
accelerationist
You can tell one of the podcasts or blusky accounts BlueMaga liberals get their talking points from used this term by the way they’ve all started constantly parroting it and usually using it wrong.
the assumption that you’re ceding your choice or that your choice is going to make a difference is were reality gets disconnected.
the fact of the matter is, we’ve been voting this way for most of a century now and it has already lead us to the same places that your understanding of accelerationism would lead us to anyways – climate change that’s guaranteed to fuck up human civilization; a panopticon powered by AI, financed by genociders, and will keep feeding off your body for the rest of your life like you’re in the matrix; and a ruling epstein class that’s so privileged it can literally publicly flaunt it’s depraved desires to fuck/kill children with zero repercussions.
There is more to do than just vote. Not voting democrat isn’t the only thing in the world.
Secondly Not voting for a candidate is not “ceding” anything, you are, by definition, not giving them something. In reality “vote blue no matter who” is “ceding your choice”, since you cede all leverage and all reason to consider you when considering popular support for policy positions, since you will vote for them no matter what. You have ceded your vote to them.You are also using accelerationist incorrectly. An accelerationist would vote for the most competent accumulator of capital, since an accelerationist believes this to be the end-point of capitalism and this point must be reached before socialist revolution can happen. They wish to get to that point as quickly as possible. The accelerationist position would most likely lead to a person voting democrat, since they are more competent administrators of empire.
you should not expect anything to change by voting and history proves that substantial & enduring changes can only comes from us.
still you should vote, even if it’s for your dog, but there are better uses for it. the epstein class assumes that you will vote for one of their approved parties, so cooperating in this system the way they want you to only serves to help validate it at best.
I realize I’m running a foul of approved Lemmy talking points but voting for your dog and persistent at ot forever don’t seem realistic to me
Youre the only one talking about voting for a dog. Youre also the one who’s reducing all political action down to voting.
And you’re also the one who is arguing against “don’t vote democrat” on the basis of “we need to change things”, which seems like the least logical line of reasoning available. By doing the same thing we have done every election so far, by further entrenching the group we wish to replace or reform, we will somehow affect change because… Even though it’s the same people and the same conditions you think it will be different this time?
Actual psychosis.voting on lemmy doesn’t matter – only the stomach you have for questioning your own indoctrination does.
voting for your dog isn’t realistic, but voting for psl or green or communist is realistic and many countries have been doing it for decades and things are much better for their people as result compared to americans.
voting to change anything also isn’t realistic, but mexico proved that it was still possible in 2017 and that’s why they have president shienbaum while we’re stuck with president trump.
No, it just says you need to stay awake the other 729 days of the biannual cycle. You obviously don’t want to do that, so you pretend it says something it doesn’t.
Do I really? You got all that from this short exchange? Interesting.
I’m not getting the “get involved outside of national election cycles” vibe from this meme that you are .
Do I really? You got all that from this short exchange? Interesting.
Go back to reddit
Nice one dude
Go back to reddit
That would be because you don’t want to.
You want to vote for “the good guys” and go back to brunch.
LMAO you already decided how you’re gonna respond and reply this to everyone critical of this very tired “meme”
No they’re responding like this to you because you suck, not because you dared to critique a meme.
ah yes the democrats are just angels
As opposed to them doing the exact same thing as the republicans as depicted in the OP? We’re both exaggerating for effect
No the democrats are doing the exact same, thats not an exaggeration. They are both committing a genocide.
And who are you saying are angels exactly?
Pictured: Someone voting democrat instead of third party or not voting.
It’s ridiculous that you put voting third party and not voting in the same category. You clearly do not understand the effects of your actions.
No, I do. Not voting and voting third party both work towards eroding the Democratic Party, which is necessary in order for positive change in the us.
Voting third party is incredibly more effective at that because it signals a desire for change rather than just voter apathy
Sure. Not voting for democrats also signals apathy. Voting is miniscule, the real part lies elsewhere.
In what way does voting for a third party candidate signal apathy? It shows you would like a candidate that is not one of the two main parties. Is that not your intention?
Voting is miniscule, the real part lies elsewhere.
What, do you plan on an armed revolution? Seriously?
In what way does voting for a third party candidate signal apathy? It shows you would like a candidate that is not one of the two main parties.
Yes. So it signals apathy with the current system.
What, do you plan on an armed revolution? Seriously?
Because the only thing to do apart from voting once every two years is to bomb the local town hall… Why is it you assume it is either vote or immediate mass organised proletarian uprising?
Do you even FPTP?
Voting third party will not elect a third party candidate yet, but it will more clearly show your desire for change and has a better chance of meaningfully affecting the behavior of the dominant parties or other voters.
Then compile a list of candidates for the masses instead of posting this image. Ain’t no normie gonna go out and research every blue candidate to see if they are a magacrat. Go teach who is good you clod.
Every blue candidate is by definition a “magacrat” whatever that means. The democrats are fascist genociders, voting for a democrat means voting for a fascist genocidal party.
Everyone is Hitler but me!
How about the ~7bil people living outside the empire? Yank brain can’t compute human existence outside the empire
No, the people voting for fascist genociders are fascist genociders - or “Hitler” as you’d say.
Except the second guy upgraded it to a foreign and domestic child crusher
No, the second guy just has less media competency so you suddenly notice the domestic part. It was there under the polite guy as well, you just didnt pay attention or care.
But lets pretend your statement was true, its cool and good for a guy to crush children as long as the kids aren’t americans? That’s insane.BlueMaga liberals only care about never being on the receiving end of what they do overseas
boohoo you experience 1 billionth of the pain that is delivered by your country to the global south every day
One is still objectively better than the other.
You’re fine with either as long as no one has the option to vote against crushing orphans.
Correct: The rude one, because he makes more people oppose the child crusher. Happy to hear you also oppose voting democrat
For white people yeah
the funny part is i’m not even sure which one this is meant to be referring to lmao. both just cater to different whites and oppress everyone else
I see one lacking in civility and one lacking in honesty, so I can’t see how one is “objectively better”. Some people favor civility over honesty, and others the other way around.
At best you can say they’re less openly scummy, doing slightly less damage (only domestically of course) while enabling the other side of their tag team to do the dirty work.
The word ‘better’ has no place here. Objectively.
Now do one about USAID.
Both parties my ass.
You wouldn’t need USAID if your terrorist state is not selling weapons to all groups in civil wars and all the countries you destroyed with your illegal wars and foreign intervention under both dems and republicans. Seeing the dem history they never fix what the republican break
Not USAID??? Won’t someone please think of the CIA front for regime-change operations?!
Other sources
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2015/04/15/lessons-not-learned-covert-operations-since-the-cold-war/https://www.justsecurity.org/18634/usaid-engage-covert-action-cuba-proper-domestic-legal-authority/
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/15/when-is-foreign-aid-meddling
And here’s something about another US program, since we’re already shitting on things
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/occrp-budget-funding-us-government-usaid
You’re just handing out ammo for free.
Clueless libKinda like USAID did for terrorists
USAID wasn’t what you think it was. It was CIA front, and Trump didn’t shut it down so much as move its operations to Marco Rubio’s State Department.
Now do one about USAID.
USA destabilizes a nation through bombing them or funding reactionary rebels and then comes in as the oh-so graceful white saviour of USAID to help the “uncivilized savages” who can not run their own country for some reason
USAID was a CIA project to keep underdeveloped colonized nations dependant on scraps of charity that came with enormous strings attached. Cutting its funding did have harm in the immediate sense but ultimately it is an organization directly beholden to the imperialist aims of the US.
Prepare yourselves, “centrists” trying to target apathy will be chiming this both sides crap straight up until midterms.
It worked with Kamala.
Don’t let it work again.
Socialists aren’t “centrists,” and we’ve been saying this all along and will continue to. The election cycle has nothing to do with it, and it didn’t “work with Kamala,” because there are far too few of us to have had an appreciable effect on the 2024 election. Harris’ campaign lost due to its own unforced errors.
If socialists were important enough to make Kamala lose the election then maybe she should’ve fucking listened
Poor Copmala, such a great domestic track record and definitely not from the both sides of genocide enablers.
It’s good that you warn people about us.
They should really check for themselves what this great woman has achieved.https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/socialism_faq.md#kamala-harris
And that’s before the unconditional genocide stuff.
Oh and this banger:
It’s all a Trump/Russian/Chinese/NK/commie but also fascist psyop to divide our peaceful country and our 2 beautiful parties that love eachother!
I have the endorsement of 200 Republicans who formerly worked with President Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.
Brilliant
Right… “Both sides crap” its just some stupid little fringe issue like genocide, mass deportations, an ever-growing police state, wasting money on a border wall, not giving a fuck about a conservative Supreme Court, more money for the military, fucking up the climate, throwing marginalised groups under the bus, not giving a fuck about womens rights. Stuff like that. Apart from that stuff, they’re not the same, that’s true I suppose. And Trump is fat (ewww).
Also, very funny bit to call people who (correctly) point out that both parties are far right wing “centrists”.
I suppose MLs are to the centre - right between Lenin and Mao (I would say Bukharin but I do not respect him.)Supporting genocide which both party supported mean not supporting everything else. Your fascist paramilitary ice and your fascist state use Israeli tech to surveil and target minorities
I’ve heard all your clichés before
Funny to bring up ICE - the institution that’s only capable of doing what it does because Obama drastically expanded its authority and budget. And Israeli tech? As opposed to when the democrats were in charge? Or do you think it wasn’t fascist then? Do you think minorities walked unmolested until Trump turned America evil?
Shit, now im retreading it again. Just click the link.You misunderstood me; I’m not defending Harris. I’m doing the opposite. Many of those shitty Democrats claim they care about Palestine, but then they just start bringing up everyone else—ICE, LGBT+, Latinos, etc. My comment was saying that they don’t even actually care about those groups either.
You can see my other comments on the topic , it is all about showing how the usa is a terrorist state
Oh. I had trouble parsing your comment due to punctuation. Particularly the “not supporting anything else”
“don’t let it work again!” You say, while doing the exact same thing that failed last time
Kamala was quite literally the same as Trump, from Palestine to the Iran war. The “problem” with Trump is that he is incompetent(which is good) and for you, the worst you people hate about Trump is he does not pretend to have a mask on like the Democrats are doing, and even then they themselves are barely keeping the mask on anymore.
One could possibly imagine turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering coupled with nice sounding words of sympathy, but there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran. Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.
Israel would have gone alone but with additional billions dollars from the USA and naturally Iran will blame the usa too leading to the same result. I can’t wait for dems to win to see how they will not stop the war. It is a shame that allies did not left you before Trump because you are the worst terrorist empire since the end of the british empire
there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran.
Youre right. The person who’s a fervent supporter of Israel, genocide, who said “Iran is the biggest threat to the US” AND “we will have the most lethal military in the world” could never conceivably start a war with Iran.
Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran
Definitely. Looking at her history we can safely conclude she would remain sceptical of Israel and not just do whatever they wanted her to do.
IF IT WERE OPPOSITE DAY!!! *GOTTEM
she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric,
Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.
Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.
You’re taking the part where I’m being charitable and accepting the other person’s (and your) premise that a war under Harris is inevitable for the sake of argument, and twisting that into as if I was arguing for it, which is incorrect. I will engage no further with you on this.
No, I’m taking your argument: “If a war were to be waged with Iran, you would prefer it would be waged by Kamala, because then it would be done competently” and pointing out your main issue with the war in Iran is how it is waged. The rest of your argument is: “I don’t think Kamala would go to war with Iran.” So, while you make allusions, the only actual objection you place to the war is that it is waged incompetently.
You know, how I first took one part of your comment, and then the other, until I had addressed the whole. You should try it.
I am then making an assumption, which is unfalsifiable, that if a war were waged with Iran under democratic leadership, you would not find it disagreeable, because you would buy into the propaganda that would be used to make you accept it.
Probably something about the inflated number of dead protesters. Or some pinkwashing.edit: How about you adress the rest of the comment?
“How can you say Harris would be the same as Trump? She would have prosecuted the brutal war of aggression competently!”
And this is why BlueMaga are just as fascist as their red counterpart
Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.
That’s a point against. I don’t want the war to be done competently. I would rather we get our asses kicked so badly that the administration gives up, and even talking about fucking with them again becomes politically toxic. We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan, and then we were there for 20 years and accomplished nothing but blood and death. If Europe had reacted like they’re doing with Iran, how many lives might have been saved by the war being cut short? Since the war is unjustified, surely it’s better that we lose. Or are you saying, “My country, right or wrong?”
Granted, I don’t fully agree with the other person’s position. I think that Trump is doing more damage than Harris would have, I just don’t believe that you should automatically support the “lesser evil.” And I don’t know really know how unlikely it really is that she’d stay out of Iran with her rhetoric about “the most lethal military in the world,” her campaigning with Cheyney, and with Biden increasing the military budget to an all time high. I’m not aware of anything she ever actually said that indicated that she was inclined to a peaceful foreign policy.
I can respect your position on that screwing up a war hard to create a deterrent and disincentive, it’s an interesting one. To me that (and arguments that he’s done more to reduce oil consumption than any environmental activist) are silver linings than reasons to direct your vote on the future one way or another.
We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan
As a Canadian, “my country” got involved there but we got burnt pretty bad I’d say, whatever the result was.
I’d rather see no war, despite Harris labelling Iran as the greatest adversary, I still don’t think it’s forgone conclusion that Harris would start a war, but I’ll assume she does for the sake of steelmanning your argument. I’m not a time traveler so I can only speculate the alternatives, but Trump instigated war not just once but twice with Iran. He’s giving American money away to dictators and allowing right wing propaganda campaigns to foment. He’s done nothing to help suffering Iranians, if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora. It’s even hard for me to speculate how long a Harris-initiated war would be, but there would definitely be a stronger push to come to a nuclear deal quicker rather than this on-off style untrustworthy negotiation with Trump, and unlike him Harris would care about any unsanctioned action getting approval from Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.
So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote, but I’ll entertain a nuanced argument that one supports a thing Trump did, intentional or not, over a at least somewhat hypothetical action Harris might take.
Lmfao, what a load of horse shit.
Fuck you . The usa never cared about a single oppressed person .
the argument that always springs up around American election-time
It’s extremely fucking demonstrative of how much liberals completely go out to brunch politically between elections that they think this argument only springs up at elections and hasn’t been what we’ve been saying consistently the whole time
This is particularly irksome, and I’m beginning to wonder if they are genuinely not paying attention, or outright gaslighting? I know with pug-nacious, flying-off-the-handle squid, flip-the-bottomless-bucket, and agent 002, it’s outright gaslighting.
if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora
Would she? Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government. This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they’ll blame their own government and revolt.
This is, in many cases, delusional, or more about wanting to “do something” to look strong to voters. Because the Democratic party is assumed to be more progressive, they sometimes go even further in order to prove that they’re not soft and weak. This was the same logic behind mass incarceration under Clinton.
Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.
Did the Republican-controlled Congress ever do anything to stop Obama from continuing the war in Afghanistan? Those people fucking love war. Every one of them is in bed with the military-industrial complex, as long as bombs are dropping, they’re thrilled.
So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote
To be precise, my position is not that they’re equally bad, but that they’re both fundamentally unacceptable. I cannot envision a future either of them would lead us to where we are not completely and totally fucked.
Four years of Biden brought declining economic conditions, record military spending, countless dead in Palestine, and four years closer to ecological collapse. When the average American sees that, they’re going to be dissatisfied and want change, which is why Trump won. What would four years of Harris get us? According to her, she wouldn’t do anything differently and refused to distinguish herself from him in any way. So, it’s reasonable to assume that things would continue in that direction, the same way they have for decades, across both Democratic and Republican administrations. Even if they somehow squeaked out a win in 2024, they would lose in 2028.
This whole mentality of lesser evilism is based on accepting the choices we’re presented with and trying to make the best of it. But my approach is to start at what actually needs to happen, and then try to work out how to get there. The crises we’re facing (climate change, for example) are part of the physical world, governed by the laws of physics. What a political system is capable of doing is only governed by human laws, by human norms and customs. If there is a disconnect between what a human system says it can do, and what a physical system says needs to happen, then the human system will bend and break. Either the rules of what our political system treats as possible will bend now, or they will break later, when, for example, cities are flooded and millions of climate refugees are starving at the border.
There is a giant boulder headed straight towards us, and one party denies it exists at all while the other acknowledges that there’s a boulder, but says that saying we should step out of the way is unrealistic, unamerican, and probably somehow antisemitic.
From a physical perspective, what needs to happen are drastic fundamental, changes to the system, because none of this shit is sustainable. If the political system does not give us that option, if we are only offered options that completely refuse to bend to what is physically necessary, then the political system is simply broken and destined to fail, and all we can do is prepare for that.
And the best way I can see to prepare for that is to call out it’s inevitable failure and to distance myself from the people responsible. Because as the system is failing, the far-right are the only ones positioning themselves as an “alternative” (even though, as the Iran War demonstrates, they’re just more of the same), and if that’s the only alternative then that’s where people will turn. There needs to be a left-wing movement that can plausibly distance itself from the establishment’s failure and can be ready to step in and pick up the pieces, or else the far-right will be the only game in town.
Tl;dr: When shit hits the fan (and it’s going to) people are going to find their ideas of what’s “politically possible” changing very rapidly. We need to be presenting a real alternative and not be associating ourselves with the people actively launching shit towards the fan.
Would she? Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government.
Not to mention the democratic party was infuriated at Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan and immediately began agitising for a return.
This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they’ll blame their own government and revolt.
Another example would be the starving of Venezuela or Cuba. Another argument would be the colour revolutions fomented - particularly under Obamas “Arab Spring”
I absolutely see where you’re coming from. Sorry if I made bad assumptions about your opinion because I’m responding to you and the original comment, and in a sense I agree on your assessment but differ on the approach.
The physical crises are coming whether we shut our eyes or not, you are correct. I am maybe a lot more optimistic than many here on how pliable that system could be. My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes. Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we’d be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens, and form some strategic alliances with the establishment to get there.
but there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DxQTPOouU
she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric,
Trump is just treating the US’ allies as they always has been; vassal states. He’s mask off and the vassal states can not do anything about it for that reason. It’s why Denmark won’t do anything but bark for their master when it comes to Greenland as an example.
Removed by mod
“How can you say Harris would be the same as Trump? She would have prosecuted the brutal war of aggression competently!”
And this is why BlueMaga are just as fascist as their red counterpart
The point is though, USA’s ill treatment of those states hurt a major source of the USA’s own soft and hard power.
Yes. That is a good thing. The USA is a genocidal imperialist fascist oligarchy. Making it a less effective agent of capitalism is a positive.
You may say losing that power is better, well that’s great, I’m glad you are getting what you want from Trump.
Thank you. Normally when people are engaged in an argument and they present the expected counterargument, they usually have some refutation of it. Especially if they present it with the framing “you may say…”
it wouldn’t be waged this illegally, and it wouldn’t be waged alone,
Neither of these things are the issue with the war. And “illegal” war is an oxymoron. If you mean domestivally, then it is far from unique, if you mean internationally then it is a useless moniker.
With no regard for human life anywhere
What is your basis for this assumption? The democrats designated all male afghanis over the age of 14 “combat-ready males”. Obama dropped more drone strikes than Bush. Biden loved genocide, and Kamala wouldn’t change a thing. The only difference is the majority of popular media pays less attention when Democrats do it, because they use nicer words.
on-again-off-again, which I argue would be less harmful for everybody.
The war would be less “harmful” if it was “legal”? If it was done with support from other imperialists? If we got all the bombing over with at once? IT IS A WAR. THE POINT IS TO CAUSE HARM.
Apart from that, more people causing harm or causing harm with more perceived legitimacy does not make the harm less harmful.
Not to mention this statement is akin to that dimwitted guy who thought he had WWII figured out
The reason the war is “off again, on again” is because Iran is an actual country with actual military capabilities that allows them to absolutely demolish US equipment in the area, and exert pressure upon the US. Iran makes reasonable demands, but they are unreasonable in the eyes of the propagandised American masses, so the political establishment cannot accept them. This would still be the situation under a democratic president.
You’d just be foaming at the mouth due to some rainbow imperialist propaganda instead.
Even if the democrats would be capable of leading a successful war, then that would not be “less harmful” it would, in fact, be worse - because the US is a fascist genocidal imperialist state. A victory would further empower the US, further entrench the establishment and leave Iran like every other nation the US has benevolently invaded - With millions dead, warlords roaming around, bored US rapist murderers guarding poppyfields, fucked infrastructure and growing right-wing radical militants. This would be the outcome of your utopian idealist view of the war if it were waged “less harmfully”.In the large majority of potential outcomes, most of them NOT engaging in needless wars
In the majority of potential outcomes the following things are still the same for Harris:
- Fervent supporter of Israel
- Critiqued the pull-out of Afghanistan
- Views Iran as a geopolitical rival, she even stated Iran is the number one US enemy
- Such a xenophobe she ran on deporting more people than Trump
- Fervent supporter of US militarism, supporting past invasions and intrusions
- Fervent supporter of the US military, which she wanted to be “the most lethal”
So, given Harris’ political platform, her political history, the history of her party, the interests of her major donors and supporters, her view of geopolitics and her support for Israel (who were the ones to push Trump to war with Iran ) we have every reason to assume, in the vast majority of “potential outcomes” the situation would be practically the same.
but you are most welcome to disagree.
Don’t make this out to be some silly little “oh its just my opinion”.
An opinion is something you have about an actual concept, it is not the concept itself. “War is bad” is an opinion. “Grass does not exist” is not an opinion. You can have an opinion on the conclusions of the analysis of what is going on and how things might have been differently, but if your opinion is that the analysis itself is incorrect, then you need to present why said analysis is incorrect. Just spouting “well I think something else” is completely useless.
Always w the projection lol
Lol
Giving more importance to a foreign state and their genocide instead of her voters is what happened to Kamala. The fact that they are actually trying to push her through again is insane.
Really? I haven’t been paying attention (because why bother). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2028_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
