- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- politics_no_um
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- politics_no_um
“He’s doing a good job,” Trump saidabout the Israeli leader. “Biden is trying to hold him back, just so you understand, Biden is more superior to the VP. He’s trying to hold him back, and he probably should be doing the opposite, actually. I’m glad that Netanyahu decided to do what he had to do, but it’s moving along pretty good.”
I honestly think if you can’t be bothered to vote you need to shut the fuck up, not complain and keep your political opinions to yourself. If you’re not even gonna vote, shut the fuck up. I don’t wanna hear it.
Pretty unfortunate for you that there’s free speech then huh? Not letting you spew your dnc propaganda undisturbed
The comment you replied to is also an example of free speech. I see it made you a little butt-hurt that this guy isn’t interested in what you have to say. But that’s the nature of free speech, you can say what you want, but others a free to think you’re a waste of time.
Perhaps if someone isn’t interested in what you have to say, you shouldn’t bother replying to them.
Lol Republicans don’t like free speech. So don’t pretend like you do.
I wouldn’t know since I am not a republican. I’m just absolutely not ok with the Palestinian genocide, but you care so little that you only seen republicans, regardless if the critique comes from the right or from the left. You’d wish you could make me look like a republican.
If you’re gonna help Republicans by staying home or voting third party or some shit you may as well slap on the red hat
I know you’d wish that, but unfortunately genocide is too much for me and the least evil argument doesn’t hold up anymore. There are red lines and dnc has absolutely crossed them. I’m not expecting you to understand, you clearly don’t care enough about the genocide.
Cool, vote for Stein then. That way you can get three genocides (Gaza, Ukraine, and LGBTQ at home) instead of just one.
But for people that actually oppose genocide, Harris is the only vote that will actually accomplish anything.
Ukrainian genocide? Where is this even coming from?
Regardless, your comment reveals the answer to your dilemma. If the question is how many genocides/oppressions you are willing to put up with, then it’s a system worth abolishing. If one party commits 4 genocides and the other 5, then would you choose the one committing 4? There is necessarily a point where both parties are doing so badly, they’re indistinguishable and they are both crossing the red lines, that applies for everyone of us, no exceptions. So the question then remains, where do you draw the line for this?
Another example I usually give for this is: one party being Hitler and the other being Hitler but he is giving a little bit more money to the healthcare system. Would you vote for Hitler? No, so you have to draw the line somewhere. We draw it at a genocide(and at numerous more issues which are for another discussion)