You’re stupid if you actually buy that. You need to actually consider your position, not listen to whatever stupid stuff you’ve heard. That’s such a childish stance.
Biden/Harris shrug off the rape prisons, decapitated children, bombed hospitals, etc. and publicly repeat some hasbara, then “leak” to the press that they’re secretly very angry and “working on a deal”. A few hours later they send Israel more bombs.
Trump, in contrast, would also send more US made bombs, except tweet that he’s “very happy” and the destruction is a “good deal”.
Trump would increase the amount we’re sending. He has said that Israel should “finish the job.” I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to know what effect your actions have. Figure it out. You don’t get to pretend like your hands are clean, because no matter what you do you made a choice and you’re a member of our society. You aren’t clean. Do what’s best for the people suffering, not for yourself. Being self-centered is not a virtue. It’s a flaw.
I acknowledge Trump uses frank, coarse rhetoric, however the result is the same: unlimited weapons and money for genocide. Trump can’t increase the amount we’re sending, as the current cap is a supply-chain issue. Unless he can magically turn money into tanks and bombs.
If you want to make this about Palestinians, consider why Jill Stein leads Harris among Palestinian Americans - especially in Michigan.
It’s large, but it isn’t unlimited. It’s also not supply-chain limited. We stockpile plenty, sell some, and are also giving some to Ukraine (which Trump will likely stop). Stop being so nieve.
If you want to make this about Palestinians, consider why Jill Stein leads Harris among Palestinian Americans - especially in Michigan.
First, I don’t really care. She is nothing except a spoiler taking Russian money.
Second, sure she says better things. She won’t do shit though because she has zero chance of winning. She’s able to say literally anything that benefits herself because there’s zero accountability because there’s no chance she’ll be required to follow through. None of what she says has any value.
Vote however you want, but consider the consequences of your actions. Don’t just do what makes you feel like you’re superior to others. Do what is likely to help the most people. For example, even if we assume Palestinians will suffer equally under either (they won’t, but let’s assume), trans people, immigrants, and women will be much worse off under Trump.
Take responsibility for your actions. If you choose to throw away your vote, whatever happens after you are partially to blame for. You aren’t outside of society. You’re part of it. As such, you play a role in what comes next. Make your choice and make it one you won’t have to regret.
I’m aware of the mainstream opinion on 3rd party voting 😉 The issue is that it conflicts with the academic US historian consensus, which is that 3rd parties are responsible for major progressive policies, from women’s suffrage to social security. It’s possibly the most powerful vote one can make.
Mainstream? It’s fucking Engels’ opinion as well. It’s the only reasonable opinion. Anything else is trolling. There are many other things that caused those movements. Protests and direct action are a large reason why public opinion shifted, which forced a political shift.
I know it’s not what you hear in newspaper editorials, but there really is an academic consensus on US third party voting.
The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.
John D. Hicks,
Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one of the other parties can be trusted to absorb it. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up…The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is “throwing away his vote.” [A] glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably he most powerful vote that has ever been cast.
Carl Beijer is a blogger. As far as I can tell, he’s not an academic. I’ve never heard of an academic use a pen name, but it’s hard to know anything about him if he’s hiding his identity.
Just because he says there’s an academic concensus doesn’t mean there is one. He has to prove it. I haven’t finished reading this yet, but I’ll probably post a new reply when I do.
You’re stupid if you actually buy that. You need to actually consider your position, not listen to whatever stupid stuff you’ve heard. That’s such a childish stance.
Yeah there is a difference.
Biden/Harris shrug off the rape prisons, decapitated children, bombed hospitals, etc. and publicly repeat some hasbara, then “leak” to the press that they’re secretly very angry and “working on a deal”. A few hours later they send Israel more bombs.
Trump, in contrast, would also send more US made bombs, except tweet that he’s “very happy” and the destruction is a “good deal”.
Trump would increase the amount we’re sending. He has said that Israel should “finish the job.” I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to know what effect your actions have. Figure it out. You don’t get to pretend like your hands are clean, because no matter what you do you made a choice and you’re a member of our society. You aren’t clean. Do what’s best for the people suffering, not for yourself. Being self-centered is not a virtue. It’s a flaw.
I acknowledge Trump uses frank, coarse rhetoric, however the result is the same: unlimited weapons and money for genocide. Trump can’t increase the amount we’re sending, as the current cap is a supply-chain issue. Unless he can magically turn money into tanks and bombs.
If you want to make this about Palestinians, consider why Jill Stein leads Harris among Palestinian Americans - especially in Michigan.
It’s large, but it isn’t unlimited. It’s also not supply-chain limited. We stockpile plenty, sell some, and are also giving some to Ukraine (which Trump will likely stop). Stop being so nieve.
First, I don’t really care. She is nothing except a spoiler taking Russian money.
Second, sure she says better things. She won’t do shit though because she has zero chance of winning. She’s able to say literally anything that benefits herself because there’s zero accountability because there’s no chance she’ll be required to follow through. None of what she says has any value.
Vote however you want, but consider the consequences of your actions. Don’t just do what makes you feel like you’re superior to others. Do what is likely to help the most people. For example, even if we assume Palestinians will suffer equally under either (they won’t, but let’s assume), trans people, immigrants, and women will be much worse off under Trump.
Take responsibility for your actions. If you choose to throw away your vote, whatever happens after you are partially to blame for. You aren’t outside of society. You’re part of it. As such, you play a role in what comes next. Make your choice and make it one you won’t have to regret.
I’m aware of the mainstream opinion on 3rd party voting 😉 The issue is that it conflicts with the academic US historian consensus, which is that 3rd parties are responsible for major progressive policies, from women’s suffrage to social security. It’s possibly the most powerful vote one can make.
Mainstream? It’s fucking Engels’ opinion as well. It’s the only reasonable opinion. Anything else is trolling. There are many other things that caused those movements. Protests and direct action are a large reason why public opinion shifted, which forced a political shift.
I know it’s not what you hear in newspaper editorials, but there really is an academic consensus on US third party voting.
John D. Hicks,
Carl Beijer is a blogger. As far as I can tell, he’s not an academic. I’ve never heard of an academic use a pen name, but it’s hard to know anything about him if he’s hiding his identity.
Just because he says there’s an academic concensus doesn’t mean there is one. He has to prove it. I haven’t finished reading this yet, but I’ll probably post a new reply when I do.