There are currently armed militias targeting bureaucrats for violence due to Republican misinformation. How many more escalations really remain before a full-blown civil war?
I’m not advocating for revolution, but it certainly seems more likely than the Democrats dropping their unwavering support for Israel.
There have always been armed militias targeting the federal government. You know who those armed militias support for President? You know which candidate would welcome those armed militias?
I don’t disagree, homey. Seems like the militias are going to be a growing problem regardless of the election. What we disagree on here is the solution.
For me, the solution is for the Dems to call the genocide what it is and force a ceasefire.
I’m not judging people for pulling the only lever the US system gives them. I don’t advocate for voting for Trump and don’t recommend anyone does, but I do understand how some people might choose to vote against the people who are currently bombing them with the hope that the only other option won’t.
What about Trump could possibly make you think that he would continue the status quo in any way, shape or form? He already publically said he would turn the military on anyone who opposed him.
We also know how he feels about anyone who isn’t a straight, white, Christian male, so how anyone arrives at the conclusion that things wouldn’t be catastrophically worse for everyone outside that demographic is a complete mystery to me.
I’m tired of the argument here that voting for a third party will make some sort of positive statement, so just do what you have to do. When Trump wins and starts deporting (or worse) Muslims currently in this country, they can all go see if Jill Stein will save them. The status quo sucks, but it’s also a lot harder to campaign for change after they’ve been expelled from the country.
For what it’s worth, I am 100% against the genocide in Gaza and I want the bombs to stop being delivered. However, it’s easier to rally and protest for change without someone aspiring to be a dictator in power.
What about Trump could possibly make you think that he would continue the status quo in any way, shape or form? He already publically said he would turn the military on anyone who opposed him.
America is a dying empire, that is the status quo.
We also know how he feels about anyone who isn’t a straight, white, Christian male, so how anyone arrives at the conclusion that things wouldn’t be catastrophically worse for everyone outside that demographic is a complete mystery to me.
We also know that the dems haven’t been protecting anyone from republicans.
I’m tired of the argument here that voting for a third party will make some sort of positive statement, so just do what you have to do. When Trump wins and starts deporting (or worse) Muslims currently in this country, they can all go see if Jill Stein will save them. The status quo sucks, but it’s also a lot harder to campaign for change after they’ve been expelled from the country.
For what it’s worth, I am 100% against the genocide in Gaza and I want the bombs to stop being delivered. However, it’s easier to rally and protest for change without someone aspiring to be a dictator in power.
Big talk for someone arguing against protesting for change.
Nobody said that, neither choice is going to solve it so it’s better to abandon both if genocide is a red line for you.
Aha, so just don’t participate. Cool cool.
I’m all on-board with revolution.
What’s the plan, my friend? How do you plan to fight against knife-missiles?
There are currently armed militias targeting bureaucrats for violence due to Republican misinformation. How many more escalations really remain before a full-blown civil war?
I’m not advocating for revolution, but it certainly seems more likely than the Democrats dropping their unwavering support for Israel.
There have always been armed militias targeting the federal government. You know who those armed militias support for President? You know which candidate would welcome those armed militias?
I don’t disagree, homey. Seems like the militias are going to be a growing problem regardless of the election. What we disagree on here is the solution.
For me, the solution is for the Dems to call the genocide what it is and force a ceasefire.
I’m not judging people for pulling the only lever the US system gives them. I don’t advocate for voting for Trump and don’t recommend anyone does, but I do understand how some people might choose to vote against the people who are currently bombing them with the hope that the only other option won’t.
If Trump wins, there will certainly be a revolution. But probably not the kind you’re looking for.
I don’t think continuation of the ever-worsening status quo counts as a revolution
What about Trump could possibly make you think that he would continue the status quo in any way, shape or form? He already publically said he would turn the military on anyone who opposed him.
We also know how he feels about anyone who isn’t a straight, white, Christian male, so how anyone arrives at the conclusion that things wouldn’t be catastrophically worse for everyone outside that demographic is a complete mystery to me.
I’m tired of the argument here that voting for a third party will make some sort of positive statement, so just do what you have to do. When Trump wins and starts deporting (or worse) Muslims currently in this country, they can all go see if Jill Stein will save them. The status quo sucks, but it’s also a lot harder to campaign for change after they’ve been expelled from the country.
For what it’s worth, I am 100% against the genocide in Gaza and I want the bombs to stop being delivered. However, it’s easier to rally and protest for change without someone aspiring to be a dictator in power.
America is a dying empire, that is the status quo.
We also know that the dems haven’t been protecting anyone from republicans.
Big talk for someone arguing against protesting for change.