"as aoc said when arguing why you should vote for biden the first time: you’re not just voting for the person who already gives you everything you want. you’re voting for the person you will argue against, criticize, protest and try to convince to do what you want. out of the two, who do you think is less likely to respond to protests? who’s more likely to be open to dialogue, even if it’s an adversarial one? vote for Harris, then protest the fuck out of her positions you don’t like. maybe with enough pressure you can force some change. with mango mussolini you have no chance."
My favorite lib strategy. Give up what little leverage you have, give the person you don't like everything they want, and then complain about it from a position of zero political influence. Also, if you complain well enough to actually require an issue be addressed, you'll get the full weight of the US legal and enforcement mechanisms on your ass.
If that's your metric I'm not sure K-dolf comes out on top. Both are genocidal maniacs but Trump is so vain and erratic that you could at least imagine him doing something for popularity's sake even if it was the right thing to do.
who’s more likely to be open to dialogue, even if it’s an adversarial one?
Libs completely ignoring that both Trump and Harris are equally unlikely to listen to the average person. With a majority of the country opposing genocide, it's still full steam ahead even though it might cost the dems the election.
"how can you think they're the same? Trump will sign the authorizations for weapons and funding with a darker sharpie" —you, a clueless genocide apologist
Yes, both sides are complicit in genocide which should be a red line. Is there literally anything that the democrats could do that would result in you not voting for them? If Harris came out and openly said "I support the genocide of Palestinians", would you still vote for her because Trump would be worse?
Do you guys say this even when both sides are the same? In a vote between sky blue and navy blue, neither option is red, and neither option is closer to red.
My favorite lib strategy. Give up what little leverage you have, give the person you don't like everything they want, and then complain about it from a position of zero political influence. Also, if you complain well enough to actually require an issue be addressed, you'll get the full weight of the US legal and enforcement mechanisms on your ass.
If that's your metric I'm not sure K-dolf comes out on top. Both are genocidal maniacs but Trump is so vain and erratic that you could at least imagine him doing something for popularity's sake even if it was the right thing to do.
Libs completely ignoring that both Trump and Harris are equally unlikely to listen to the average person. With a majority of the country opposing genocide, it's still full steam ahead even though it might cost the dems the election.
The "both sides" argument. Lovely.
"how can you think they're the same? Trump will sign the authorizations for weapons and funding with a darker sharpie" —you, a clueless genocide apologist
Both are supporting a fucking genocide you ghoul
Yes, both sides are complicit in genocide which should be a red line. Is there literally anything that the democrats could do that would result in you not voting for them? If Harris came out and openly said "I support the genocide of Palestinians", would you still vote for her because Trump would be worse?
the question you will never, ever receive an answer to
@migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com prove me wrong
Do you guys say this even when both sides are the same? In a vote between sky blue and navy blue, neither option is red, and neither option is closer to red.