Some people are privileged enough where it doesn’t impact them either way, or are at least stupid enough not to notice
Everyone is going to be impacted by this election.
If Trump is elected, we’ll be on a path to dictatorship and civil war. If Harris is elected, we’re on a path to World War III.
No American is escaping the consequences of this one.
If Harris is elected, we’re on a path to World War III.
Nothing about this statement is even remotely true.
why does harris mean world war 3?
is it because of funneling weapons to israel? because trump has promised to do that too. and has also promised NOT to work for a ceasefire.
On reflection they probably mean Donald would ensure Ukraine is taken over, which is true. I suppose that means delaying WWIII until Russia’s next invasion.
They must have forgotten Donald tweeting (nuclear?) threats at Iran from the Oval Office. Or they don’t think that would be a World War situation.
I think he was talking about big scary Pootin, threatening for the undecillionth time to push the big scary red button. Don’t think about Pootin being to scared to even call for a mobilization, just ignore that he’d rather throw north koreans into the meat grinder than his own voter base, because he’s scared of them. Just ignore that. Focus on that big red scary button. WW3 around the corner!
It could also be because the US is standing alone against more or less the entire world in supporting Israels genocide.
Ah yes Harris is totally working towards a ceasefire
Like the one that Hamas just rejected because it did not call for Israel to stop bombing or for it to withdraw troops or for Palestinians to be able to return to their homes
Yes definitely a ceasefire if you let one side keep bombing
Basically, Harris is a war hawk. When she accepted the DNC’s nomination, she promised America would have the world’s most lethal fighting force.
On Ukraine, when they were asked about it in the debate, Trump emphasized the need to negotiate peace. Harris emphasized unconditional support for Ukraine.
Yes, there’s not a lot of daylight between Trump and Harris’s statements on Israel. But Trump’s statements were made before the conflict escalated to involve Lebanon, and I’m not actually sure if he even means what he says. Harris has maintained her commitment to Israel as the conflict has escalated, and even as it has generated discord in her party. I definitely believe that her commitment to Israel is sincere.
On China, it’s hard to be certain about Harris’s personal views, but the Biden administration that she is part of has escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Trump, in stark contrast, is reported to have questioned the value of supporting Taiwan at all. (I’m not saying the US should abandon efforts at maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait. But the US should definitely not be escalating tensions either.) Right now there’s no reason to believe Harris differs from Biden on the issue, especially considering her hawkish tendencies elsewhere.
You are naive if you think giving countries who threaten war or even start them everything they want and more is going to decrease the chance of more of the same.
I love playing the uncompromising pacifist or vatniks game.
What does it tell you that those are the same side?
In what fucking world do people who unquestioningly believe Russian propaganda qualify as “uncompromising pacifists”?
I said nothing about giving any country everything that they want.
And Biden had plenty of opportunity to de-escalate the situation in the Donbas before it resulted in war, and he escalated it instead, just as he escalated the situation in the Taiwan Strait.
Yet what you’re suggesting is to appease dictators whenever they issue threats and attack countries. Gee that worked so well with Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest. Putin is a war criminal, a crook and an incompetent statesman (see the deteriorating Russian economy years up until the Ukraine war). They were always going to steal land like the cancerous leech they really are.
Yet what you’re suggesting is to appease dictators whenever they issue threats and attack countries.
No, I was suggesting to de-escalate tensions and resolve territorial disputes peacefully and democratically before they spill over into armed conflict.
I wish he’d done more. Neither Russia or China or both of them combined would do well against the US, even without NATO. They wont start a conflict.
Neither Russia or China or both of them combined would do well against the US, even without NATO.
I suspect the opposite, but I’m hoping we never find out.
and I’m not actually sure if he even means what he says.
don’t you think it says something that this is the only excuse people who defend trump can come up with anymore
Oh, I’m not defending Trump. He’s terrible.
Yeah I really got that impression from your comment framing Trump’s stances on various wars as reasonable compared to Harris’s
I wouldn’t use the term “reasonable”, because I don’t think Trump’s positions are well-reasoned, or even well-informed. I think his foreign policy is one of apathy rather than one of enlightened peacekeeping.
But I’ll take that over Harris’s instinct for military aggression, especially with the world on the brink of WW3.
We’re on a path to WW3 anyway, trumps entire mandate from his handlers is to destabilize the US before things kick off so we’re in a weak position
So what you’re saying is Harris means Vulcans??
Not until 2063.
I’m expecting at least some rioting if Trump loses. Just stocked up on booze and popcorn so I can ride this week out.
Oh, it’s you again. Still shoving these baseless claims down everyone’s throats. Come now, my dude, we talked about this.
Who are you?
Well, one of the
VP candidatescandidates’ henchmen is rather fond of eating meat he found on the side of the road…he’s not a vp candidate, he’s on several ballots as full on p candidate, and is lined up for a cabinet position if donald trump wins
Notice how it’s easier to assume the other side is ridiculous and stupid than it is to consider that their arguments could have some validity as well. Wayyy to many of my coworkers are die-hard Trump fans and can’t imagine how dumb people would have to be to vote blue.
I assume the arguments we are supposed to consider aren’t the outrageously bigoted ones. Are there other ones in favor of Donald? Hard mode: that are based in reality?
One hot topic is abortion. A large majority of Christians have religious reasons to believe that abortion for non-emergency medical reasons is considered murder. Trump has repeatedly pledged to fight to overturn current abortion laws (even though there is nothing he can do about it anyway). Unsurprisingly, most Christians I have interacted with are right-leaning, if not completely horizontal. It’s also much easier for people to wrap their heads around abortion than it is the national/global economy, so naturally many people would care more about that, even if Harris has better economic policies.
On a surface level, yes, tribalism is easy to fall into and it’s important to examine your biases and reflect on your beliefs. Having done that though, it becomes clear that the Republicans are in fact stupid and ridiculous. It’s easy to see that their talking points are the results of ignorance and fascist propaganda and not much else. There are underlying reasons for that of course, fascist propaganda heightens feelings of fear, anger, and resentment, and appeals to people who feel aggrieved, especially about the loss of stability, privilege, or an imagined better past. We can’t do away with standards and values. We can’t allow our minds to be so open that our brains fall out. Republicans do measurably, objectively far more harm.
I’ll bite: What arguments does Mr. I’ll-Blow-Someone-For-A-Good-Mic-Stand have going for him?
Gotta get that protein for the gains
Single issue voters. They ruin things for everyone.
That depends. If that single issue is “Every single thing that came out of this candidate’s mouth for the last few years was bat-shit crazy” that seems like a rather important single issue.
The problem is that swing voters focus on only one issue, and it’s the issue that impacts them the most. It might be just the genocide in Gaza and how the current administration is handling it. Or might be just healthcare. Or just women’s rights. Or the economy. They don’t seem to look at the big picture and can’t weigh their personal feelings against all the issues as a whole. They can’t say "I’ll take a hit on the economy if women’s rights and abortions are better for the people as a whole ". It’s often what impacts them most. From what I’ve read, the economy is the biggest issue and as long a they think they might be better off with Trump, they’ll vote for him, regardless of the impact to everyone else.
I’d agree if every single example you pointed out wasn’t gonna be handled better by the dems. And I don’t take Gaza as a good example either, because wanting a change in how it’s handled by electing someone who fucking despises muslims and would love to see em eliminated, is beyond description.
Like here, point by point, skipping Gaza as I already mentioned it. Healthcare - Wants it gone. Women’s rights - Wants em gone. Economy - Wants to sanction every import, AKA basically everything, AKA wants it gone.
Small picture - He fucks up everything, for his personal gain. Big picture - He fucks up everything, for his personal gain.
It’s not that deep, he isn’t even pretending to hide his intentions anymore! It’s not a protest vote if the only way to undo the damage from set vote would be total war. “Owning the libs” doesn’t meat shit if it’s at the cost of your own family.
Raw? Try rotten…
I think it’s more how bothered can I be to go vote
E:
Should’ve written it like this
I think for the people living there it’s more “how bothered can I be to vote”
I see, so you’re letting somebody else decide on what you eat for breakfast.
And what you’re gonna eat tomorrow And what you’re going eat the next day And the next day…. For four years, and possibly longer.
Hope you like garbage chicken.🍗 🍗 🍗
I’m not American
Oh, you probably should have opened with that.
Your breakfast was decided for you when you were chained to the two options presented
You can’t even make a hypothetical scenario where your point is true… sad
Nobody was chained with 2 options. The options were chosen and rallied for by representatives picked by the people who actually thought about and participated in local government elections. (I’m dropping the metaphor, since it glosses over the process by which these 2 options came about in the first place)
The options were chosen and rallied for by representatives picked by the people who actually thought about and participated in local government elections.
Except one of the options was foisted onto us and no one voted for her, and the last time she ran she was so unpopular that she dropped out before the primaries.
Look around you.
Every thing in your life is from a political decision. How much money you earn, how much tax you pay, what the roads are like.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you live in a place with rampant voter suppression that makes voting difficult.
I spent all of 60 seconds voting by mail. But even if I were to go vote in person, it’s never taken me more than ten or fifteen minutes, including travel time.
But I know there are some places where people are forced to stand in lines for hours. This is why we need voter protection laws.
Edit: Just saw your comment that says you’re not American. My comment still stands.
Voting is compulsory where I live
Getting the nonvoter to vote may be a bit harder, but I believe much more fruitful endeavor than trying to court someone that is “undecided” at this point in that game.
Go vote, peeps
Very well put!
What if the cereal is committing genocide?
The raw chicken wants more genocide, your argument has no point
The raw chicken wants exactly the same amount of genocide
Even if that is true about the particular genocide people are referring to in this comment chain, the raw chicken is also doing Blood Libel towards Haitians and promising to mass deport millions of people.
The raw chicken also said they would be a dictator and throw their opponents in jail. The raw chicken did not mention charging them with crimes, just throwing them in jail.
harris at least claims she’s working towards a ceasefire. whether she actually is is up for debate. what’s not up for debate is that trump wants israel to finish the job.
It isn’t. So your what if is irrelevant to the point.
Thirty-three countries have recognized it as a genocide, and we’re waiting for a ruling from the International Court of Justice (in a case brought by South Africa).
I didn’t say a genocide wasn’t happening. You really need to look outside your own biases. I think you’ll find conversations to be significantly easier to manage.
What I said- was that the “cereal” isn’t committing genocide.
Not committing genocide…just enabling genocide. I believe that’s called a “distinction without a difference”.
What if the cereal is committing genocide
I believe I was responding to this. And it’s not a “distinction without a difference.” It’s a poorly made straw man.
Harris isn’t enabling anything. She hasn’t made any policy decision that has a thing to do with Israel or Palestine.
So unless you have anything else to offer besides reality-warping rhetoric… we’re done here.
The Cereal is committing genocide.
It’s not even the first time the cereal has committed genocide.
So… you honestly stand to accuse Harris of genocide? Do you know how any of this works?
You’ve got to be one of the biggest hypocrite. You claim to be against genocide yet look at all the pro Russia posts you’ve made in your post history. So you don’t care about Russia’s lengthy history of committing genocide along with Russia’s more recent genocides huh?
I’m not pro-Russia.
And I fully acknowledge that Russia has a disturbing number of genocides and forced relocations in its history, including the Crimean Tatars.
On this particular issue, though, namely the issue of Palestine, Russia is on the correct side. Russia supports existence of the State of Palestine along the pre-1967 borders.
And the Chechen genocide.
Then you vote for who you’d rather fight against. Yep yep, everybody sucks. We vote to choose our battle
I’d much rather fight cereal. Raw chicken gets all over you
Fair point.
Wow, sounds like neither would be preferable to both meals, then. Too bad that isn’t an option.
Still not a good reason for voting Trump. Fortunately, most people have Jill Stein and/or Cornel West on their ballots, so they can vote for an anti-genocide candidate if they want to.
let’s be real… it’s between cooked chicken found loose, unwrapped in a dumpster… and entirely raw chicken also from a dumpster… and covered in arsenic and cockroaches….
but harris/biden are still terrible, and directly have been supporting a genocide in palestine….
trump would do all that and much much worse… but they’re both horribleLet’s talk about Harris’s policy other than Israel. What do you disagree with? It must be a considerable amount if you’re making this comparison, so let’s discuss it.
- Small business economic injection?
- Healthcare cost reductions?
- Tax cuts for the lower/middle class, tax increases for the ultra-rich?
- Social Security / Medicare boosts?
- Decriminalizing marijuana?
- Not implementing disastrous tariffs on foreign trade?
- Rent caps and first-time-homebuyer funds?
- Abortion rights?
- Combating corporate price fixing?
- Student debt relief and school funding?
- Child care assistance?
- Support for Ukraine?
- Tighter gun laws?
- Green energy?
Honestly, I’m Absolutely convinced the rhetoric surrounding Palestine in this election is 100% astroturfing by any of the various groups that are incentivized to undermine not just a democratic candidate, but democracy as a whole
It’s just such a reductionist rhetorical standpoint that offers zero actual solutions to anything at all.
Completely with you here. “I know Trump would be worse for the issue I purport to be the most important to me, but I can’t bring myself to vote for the better of two realistic options because she’s not perfect, so I’m voting for Jill Stein.” It’s completely nonsensical, and honestly, I have zero respect for anyone who would actually knowingly make that decision.
But has Harris simulated oral sex in public?
If you want a candidate that represents you and will simulate oral sex in front of children, there’s only one candidate to pick.
My brother in Christ no one is defending Trump here. You can criticize Kamala without supporting Trump.
Did you reply to the wrong person?
I made a joke and you are going, “Both sides bad.”
i find it hard to talk about someone’s policies other than gleefully supporting and arming a genocide… everything else is small potatoes….
like when she pretended like protesters were antisemitic and not anti-genocide… released a long statement just completely ignoring why they were there….
biden bypassed congress to give them more weapons….
they also helped fight the genocide in Ukraine… trump would help the israel genocide, russia’s genocide… and then get pretty genocidal with latinos in america… so i’m puking while voting for harris… no need to convert me….
…
it’s not just cereal i don’t like thoughI’m glad you’re at least willing to see what’s worse. Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised by her policies regarding Isreal-- I did hear recently that only 17% of Israelis want Harris, vs (I think it was) 63% for Trump and his “finish the job” rhetoric. So if Israel hates her, that’s probably a good sign.
everything else is small potatoes….
I disagree. It’s all small potatoes compared to climate policy; if we don’t address that, Israel, Palestine, Russia and Ukraine will be fucked, as will all the rest of us. Trump is markedly worse there, so really, it should be no contest.
Look, I get the outcry over this issue, but here’s the thing: Biden isn’t Kamala, and all of this rhetoric is acting like she is. Additionally, Congress passes the budgets that determine where this aid goes, not the president. Furthermore, it’s obviously a hotbutton issue on both sides and chances are she and her team of professionals analyzed the chances of she denounces Israel vs. doing what she’s doing, and determined they’d be better if she took this stance. While I agree that I’d rather see a stronger denouncement of Israel, really, what I actually want is for Trump to lose this election, and any course of action that has the greatest chance of making that happen, I am in favor of.
Aka: BOTH SIDES!!!
way to minimalize but although both sides suck, the drumpf one is infinitely worse….
but the alternative to drumpf isn’t yucky cereal….
it’s like 1 genocide vs 5 genocides… i’ll vote for 1, but only because it’s against the 5, not because it’s ok enough cereal, but because it’s not immediately deadly…If you don’t like being called out for a both sides argument, doubling down on the both sides argument isn’t going to progress the conversation.
It only serves to illustrate your lack of intelligence and knowledge. You’re so focused on Palestine you don’t give a fuck out the war on women that is also taking place.
Anyone who’s main focus for this election is Palestine is best case scenario, a moron.
Aka stop being a zealot.
Says the zealot. Your projecting. Again.
Uh huh, being against a genocide means “pROjeCtInG”
Your feverish focus on Palestine over all other issues, zealotry.
Name calling anyone that doesn’t have the same devotion to your primary issue is also zealotry.
Me pointing out both-sides-ism and you calling me a zealot, also zealotry and boorish.
Kay zealot, good to know that to people like you genocide is okay.
Open your eyes beyond your single issue of choice pease 😊
i don’t find arming a genocide to be a political “issue”…. it’s crimes against humanity….
to pretend like it’s some housekeeping issue is disingenuous, and you know it.
(i’m still voting for harris as the anti-trump vote)Even seeing that issue as very important, how can you not see that not supporting Israel has been a total taboo in American politics for about as long as Israel has existed on both sides. I doubt any president or administration even has the political capital to change that.
