At 1:27 he unironically says that in a vote between Mussolini and Hitler, the best thing to do is vote Mussolini because he's the lesser evil. A lot of mentions about how "the math is simple". Does the canned "you're immature for refusing to vote for a candidate that doesn't align with 100% of your views", but throws in a shitty little analogy about refusing to buy a car at a dealership just because it didn't have leather seats to strawman enemies of genocide.
Even smugger energy than 
Having two real choices is reality. It sucks, but the denial is absurd. Also the hyperbole of "Hitler vs Mussolini" makes me lmao. Only one candidate has literally said the military should be used against leftists. That truly is Hitler shit.
The other has a running mate that called the national guard on BLM protesters.
when and where did that happen? anything i find about BLM and the national guard happened under Trump.
To add on top of Frank's testimony, here's a source that opposes the claim that he was too soft on the protesters by citing all the lengths he went to make sure they were sufficiently punished: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/how-walz-responded-to-riots-in-minnesota-after-the-death-of-george-floyd/
point taken. i guess the difference being Walz was actually responding to something and Trump is just making vague threats.
https://hexbear.net/post/3133545
only one candidate is actively aiding a genocide and said actually we're going to keep doing it
"Bbbut trunp will genocide harder"
[Citation needed] and one could simply vote for neither genocide supporting candidate
so trump threatening fascism is somehow worse than actually doing fascism
Tim "we must preemptively strike Iran" Walz, the candidate for harm reduction
Believe it or not genociding a population is also Hitler shit.
No, it's not reality because as a voter it's not your job to decide the winner of the election — that is out of your hands entirely — it's your job to signal support for a candidate and their platform, and that message will be received regardless of who wins. Honestly, 'tactical voting', and the emotional blackmail that goes along with it, is such undemocratic, narcissistic bullshit.
Anti-genocide is non-negotiable.
participating in elections is like participating in capitalism, there is no ethical version of it so good luck with that. if you don't live in a swing state then you can do whatever cause our electoral system blows.
I'm not forced at gunpoint to participate in elections
And if you live in a swing state your vote actually counts, so make it count by voting third party. The Harris campaign has made a deliberate choice to lean into support for genocide. If she wins despite that, there is no coming back. Every subsequent president will only get worse because the American people will have granted the political establishment permission to literally do anything they want on their behalf.
And if you live in a swing state you have a moral obligation to vote against genocide (third party, or write in "Free Palestine" for President).
A vote for the Democrats is a vote for genocide.
Wow so i guess don't vote then??
There being only two possible winners does not mean there are only two choices for who to vote for. Trump will not end election terms if he wins, but if the Democrats win thanks to the unconditional support of leftists, it will only accelerate the rightward lurch of the Dems. The only way to bring the Dems left is with a left opposition to them, which can only be done if you reject the alarmist view in which Trump winning again makes him Fuhrer for life (he'll be lucky to live out his whole term, tbh). If you are a leftist, it should be your primary concern as far as the election goes to prevent the Dems from having genocide as a viable platform.
No, that is the reality. And voting for a third party or not voting will not change the policies of either capitalist party. There is no path in which the left wins through voting or not voting.
It does matter. No more than 15 years from today there will be millions of climate refugees coming to the US because of ecosystem collapse causing widespread famine and war. If the entire political establishment of the United States learns that you can win an election while committing the gravest crimes against humanity since the Vietnam war, and still get everyone's support, those refugees will literally be shot and gassed like Auschwitz. There is no other hope for them. The Republicans will always call for another Holocaust, and if you give the Democrats permission to be genocidal maniacs in 2024, they sure as hell aren't gonna grow a spine by 2036 so they'll just go along with it. If by that point in time American politicians aren't afraid of conscientious people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, we're all done for.
And I know that the obvious objection is that it's naïve to think the Dems care enough about winning to change their agenda away from the interests of empire to match what the public wants. But the truth is, they're scared. If liberal democracy loses legitimacy, it's a quick way into a death spiral for empire. It is in the long term interests of empire to listen to the working classes of the imperial core when they make serious demands. And ignoring your power to make such a serious demand, in the face of a genocide that is being broadcast to the eyes of the whole world, is leaving power on the table.
If nothing else, agitating about how hopeless both major parties have made the situation is a good opportunity to get people to organize outside of the mainstream political system and build dual power. People have never been more alienated, and more aware of systemic failures than now. To surrender to liberals browbeating you over "Trump is literally Hitler" is not only leaving power on the table for the reasons I stated before, it's leaving the alienated but not yet politicized masses without an answer. What kind of communist doesn't take any opportunity to shout the answer in those people's ears?
Do the Dems not care about winning at all, in your view?
deleted by creator