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.
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
Seriously, lol. Harris could shoot someone on 5th avenue and they'd still vote for her.
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.