https://bsky.app/profile/kevinmkruse.bsky.social/post/3kp6dhld5qx2q
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
start making appeals to the people on the other side
lmao. he is and has always been on the "other side"
From Reagan's biographer:
The carnage caused by Israeli bombings of Beirut was regularly highlighted on the nightly news, causing reactions within the Reagan administration that cut across the usual conservative-pragmatist divisions. The speechwriters were appalled; one of them, Landon Parvin, refused to write remarks for Reagan when Begin visited the White House for a chilly visit in June. On August 12, after Israeli planes had bombed Beirut for eleven consecutive hours, Deaver told Reagan he couldn't continue to be part of "the killing of children" and intended to resign. Shultz and Clark had been sending similar signals to Reagan, albeit more diplomatically.
Reagan, also disgusted at the bombings, took the unusual step of calling Begin. "Menachem, this is a holocaust," he told him.
In a voice that the aide who monitored the conversation said was "dripping with sarcasm," Begin replied: "Mr. President, I think I know what a holocaust is." But Reagan persisted. Begin called back twenty minutes later to say he had given the order to stop the bombings. After he hung up the phone, Reagan said to Deaver, "I didn't know I had that kind of power."
Biden during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon:
As Biden’s colleagues “grilled” Begin over Israel’s disproportionate use of force, including by targeting civilians with cluster bomb munitions, Begin said Biden “rose and delivered a very impassioned speech” defending the invasion. Begin said he was shocked at how passionately Biden supported Israel’s invasion when Biden “said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.”
It's amazing the way all these silly
rationales collapse the moment you apply the logic from the other side or even just follow the logic beyond the exact rhetorical cul-de-sac they've convinced themselves is the whole world.Not voting for a candidate just tells them they won't ever get your vote, so why bother changing.
So what does voting for them unconditionally do?
It... umm... well... ensures they rely our your vote instead of going to the right. Which gives you power... somehow
Power I can use by threatening to withhold my vote?
No, because then they know you're not reliable and can and will ignore you.
So my choice is to vote against my interests and morals and be ignored, while supporting a monster. Or not do that, be ignored, and focus on something else.
Uhm no. I mean yes. But no because something something Trump, something something you can't come to my dinner party
I think they are saying we should vote for trump and pull him left
refusing to vote for rightwingers forces them to appeal to leftist ideas, right? right? hey, unhand me!
I think the rationale is something like:
If the democrats/Labour/the SPD etc. (ie. the lib blob party) gets few votes they will be afraid and move right to claw back those votes.
If the lib blob party gets many votes they feel safe to do the good things they really want to do.
If the lib blob party does bad things it is evidence that they didn't get enough votes and you have to vote for them. Anything bad the lib blob does is the voters' fault.
THERE IS NO WAY THE AVERAGE CITIZEN CAN PUSH A POLITICIAN IN ANY DIRECTION IF THAT POLITICIAN KNOWS THOSE PEOPLE ARE GUARANTEED TO VOTE FOR THEM NOMATTER WHAT.
THE ONLY WAY IS TO COMMUNICATE DEMANDS EN BLOC, THREATEN TO WITHHOLD VOTES IF IGNORED, AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT.
They are trying so hard to convince themselves that they are the moral and smart ones for voting in favor of genocide.
"Put your big boy pants on". What a time to be alive.
Biden is génocidaire. I will not vote for him.
Yes, that doesn't fit your equation. But then again - people who think as I do and will not be pro-génocidaire are not the problem.
No one has their ideal candidate on the ballot. Put your big boy pants on and vote for whoever you think will move the country in a positive direction.
Put your big boy pants on and vote for whoever you think will move the country in a positive direction.
Okeeeeee
https://votesocialist2024.com/
I never thought if I mentioned genocide the actual reply would be "put your big boy pants on". That kind of ridiculous situation usually only happens in my head when I'm trying to think up stuff for a parody.
Just when you thought we'd reached the limits of liberal absurdity
Turns out that just pushes the limits further to the right!
“put your big boy pants on”.
Those are the pants in question
Show
Isn't there an option for "write-in candidates" in the US? How does it work? Could everyone vote for somebody else to clearly say they wanted to choose, but didn't like the choices being offered?
Nah, votes themselves don't get someone elected president. The electoral college does. There are some states that set up laws so their electoral college votes have to match the will of the state's popular vote, but I doubt that includes write ins.
If a write in campaign were organized enough to win, they are also organized enough to get 3rd party ballot access.
We write in "Genocide Joe" and piss off everyone all at once.
For the rest of my life I get to troll the libs by telling them that I voted for Genocide Joe while also not voting for Biden. It's a fool proof plan.
I feel like railroad owners have ideal candidate on the ballot tbh, so jimmy buffet got his guy
Democracy is when voting for the guy I like is the only viable option
It's kind of incredible to me that libs respond by saying "Don't let the perfect be enemy of the good on election day," even on a day when Israel has openly assassinated aid workers.
Yeah at this point if anything it seems like if you really want to do a “lesser evil” vote Trump is the choice. It doesn’t seem like there is a greater evil than Biden.
Because I opened an account at Bluesky - I occasionally get libs who reply to me with all the crazy lib arguments I haven't experienced directly. A few hours ago somebody there replied to me with "But Trump would nuke Gaza" take. It's scary how Trump Derangement Syndrome has destroyed so many lib brains and souls.
But Trump would nuke Gaza
Hey libs, you sure you really want to convince me that Trump will exterminate every Palestinian in Gaza just like Biden is doing, but instead of going and congratulating Bibi when ground is broken on the first Zionist settlement, Trump would instead make it uninhabitable to the colonists? Hmm.
I've seen this take on
quite a bit though, TBH. No BlueSkkky needed.
The post is by Kevin M. Kruse - a lib historian.
Kevin Michael Kruse (born 1972) is an American historian and a professor of history at Princeton University. [...] Kruse self-identifies as a liberal, though he has stated that he is "too amenable to compromise and coalition-building to be an avatar of the far left".
I guess my comment to him that Biden is a génocidaire wasn't "coalition-building" enough so he blocked me. Haha.
If you don’t care enough to even attempt to compromise or win anyone over, then what’s the point of running as the “opposition?” Why not just run as as a republican and appeal to the right from the get go? All this says is that liberals have no moral compass or consistency, which is true, but also a lie because their moral compass points to evil and they’re consistently useless
"You see if I vote for a politician no matter what, I am sure to be listened to!" And other statements manifested by the utterly not-at-all-deranged
Ok, but if you don't vote for Biden, he will be sad. Ever think about that, commie?
![Saying you will not tolerate genocide is bad because.... [Check notes] This will push Biden to the right. Wait. What?](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/c8fd4473-8ae1-4f7f-8531-281ba29f58d9.png){kind=link}