- 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 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)