Anyone who is mad about Biden should consider that Trump’s people are ready and willing to nuke the entire Middle East on the chance that it will start the Rapture.
Half a loaf is better than getting shot.
Like, it’s not even a close call. And I’m still not seeing how biden’s actual record isn’t a factor. He’s done a pretty solid job with the resources he’s got. A good chunk of Congress is a terror cell at this point, the supreme Court is stacked with zealots appointed for life, and he’s still managed to get a lot of good stuff done.
He is still sending weapons to Israel. Run a non genocidal candidate if you want my help.
Otherwise you will get nothing from me.
Israel is bound by treaty to defend Israel as we are allies.
Biden is mostly trying to prevent a shooting war between Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Which would 100% involve nukes and obliterate the global economy for decades. (Imagine all European - Asian oceanic trade just stopping).
That’s why he’s doing it. Hamas is a proxy agent for Iran they are using against Israel.
So I should support guaranteed genocidal actions now to maybe possibly prevent an event that might theoretically happen?
Also, when someone is committing genocidal acts, maybe it is time to break treaty with them.
Let Israel act however it wants without big daddy USA backing them and then let’s see their actions without the biggest military in the world backing them.
They only walk around wagging their ducks because they have backing.
Let them handle their own problems without us and then see how they act.
It is very easy to be a bully when you have a bigger friend to help.
We buy weapons FROM Israel. Like it or not, Israel is a military asset.
Ok, that changes nothing about what I said.
Well you live in a facist leaning and fascist sympathising country. Now what? Apathy doesn’t seem like the best course of action.
So I should vote to support genocide?
If a vote either way supports genocide and no vote does nothing to stop genocide, what’s the tangible difference?
Oh yes. Trump will certainly not continue that.
At some point you just have to accept that this will happen and you can’t change it. From that point, pick your best future.
I pick the one that will let me sleep best at night, and knowing I didn’t support genocide will let me sleep great.
It really depends on what a Trump reign will look like, right?
Will he be able to round up tens of millions of people and deport them, as he has promised? Will he institute another Muslim ban, as he has promised? Will he stay in office after his next four year term, as he has said he wants to? Will he use the office of the president to persecute political opponents, as he has promised? Will he “root out” all the “vermin” in the United States, as he had promised? And if yes: who will get declared to be “vermin?” How will they be “rooted out?” Will he make torture legal, as he promised? Will he bring back family separation and child detention camps? Will he threaten nuclear war again? And if yes, will some crazy regime take him up on the offer?
And if all of that or even just a fraction of that comes to pass, will you still sleep well, knowing that you might have been able to stop all of that but voting for the lesser of two evils was just beneath you?
Because ultimately, that’s the decision you’re making.
Yep! People like to try and pretend you can not be neutral but unless I am voting FOR trump then I am not canceling out someone else’s vote.
I won’t help you guys re-elect a genocide supporting president either way.
We keep talking about Israel is not doing enough to stop civilians and wringing our hand while on our knees sucking Netanyahu’s dick and just begging him not to cum on our face because we need to look presentable.
They openly killed journalists, on video, with physical and forensic evidence, right after the journalists switched from recording the Lebanese side to the Israeli side.
While clearly marked as being press.
Defend that, also I am still waiting for those beheaded babies that the IDF used to rile everyone up with.
You know, the one the president you want me to support said he saw and then had to walk back later.
People like to try and pretend you can not be neutral
Refusing to participate doesn’t make you neutral. It makes you complacent.
Are you okay with countries that see what’s happening in Gaza and do nothing so that they don’t have to get involved?
But you did. You paid taxes and live in this country. Your lack of voting shows apathy, it doesn’t absolve complicity.
If you really want to change it, you participate more, not less.
Rephrase I will sleep fine knowing I am not directly supporting genocide nor the people who enable it.
I will NOT vote for someone who is helping innocent children die.
You’re right about my indirect support, but I can not change that.
Out of curiosity: does your opposition to genocide extend to you joining protests, contacting your representatives, and encouraging others to do the same?
Or do your principles only extend as far as you not actually doing anything?
You aren’t voting for anyone. No one is. This is a first past the post voting system. You don’t vote FOR people, you vote AGAINST people. And by not voting, you’re saying you won’t vote against either party.
Let’s establish the situation. There’s only two outcomes of the election. Any other possibilities are so remote we can dismiss then.
-
Biden wins. The status quo continues.
-
Trump wins. More Palestinians and innocent children die.
There is a clear outcome here that is going to be worse and kill more people. You have three options on how to act:
A. Vote for Biden
B. Vote for Trump
C. Don’t vote for either of them
If you pick A, 1 becomes more likely. If you pick B, 2 becomes more likely. If you pick C, 2 also becomes more likely because of the electoral college. If you pick A or B, you’ll feel guilty. If you pick C, you’ll (incorrectly) feel like you’re innocent and not complicit.
You say you care about the people dying. That means you want the outcome with the least deaths, 1. If you want to outcome 1, you should pick A. Why are you refusing to?
No one here is delightfully voting for the genocide to continue. We want to stop it, but that isn’t an option. Shouldn’t we then act to minimize the death toll as much as we possibly could?
A child who survives in outcome 1 could die in outcome 2. If you don’t strive for outcome 1, you have blood on your hands. Do you care more about having a falsely clear conscience, or do you want to save lives? It’s very easy to say you want none of them to die. It’s not as easy to take an action that you know will still result in people dying, but it kills fewer people.
If you are genuine in your convictions, and I choose to believe that you are, I am confident that you’ll make the decision to try and save lives, at whatever personal cost to yourself.
-
As soon as the debate ended, CNN began post-game coverage
This is the problem with US politics. Turn your elections into a sports match and people are gonna tribe up. Total circus.
Turn the news into a for-profit industry, and you get competition for eyes.
While the news has always been a for-profit industry, Citizens United turned election years into billion dollar windfalls for news outfits.
I’m pretty sure that’s why USA Today owns almost all the local papers in my state. They can float the payrolls between election years, or cut a bunch of local reporters and send their own around following primaries in the state with the most campaign money each week.
I don’t believe the news was always for-profit. Early television news actually cost the station money and was provided as a service for the public good. Things took a turn for the worse sometime in the sixties, accelerating through the eighties and devolving into the shitshow we have today.
I don’t believe the news was always for-profit.
No it wasn’t, and it would referred to as the Fourth Estate.
Look at the history of newspapers. They started a war at one point to sell more papers. Which is how the term yellow journalism was coined.
It’s true that the fairness doctrine made broadcast news better for the period when they were losing money, right up to about when Kennedy was assassinated, but that’s been long gone for decades, and only really helped radio and OTA TV.
It’s true that the fairness doctrine made broadcast news better
My comment that you replied to was related just to broadcast news, and not newspapers. The Big Three.
Turn the news into a for-profit industry
No more Fourth Estate for you!
