No average dem is fantasizing about Republicans hurting people. This is nonsense, pathetic, and textbook straw man, all your word salad doesn’t change this. We get it, you like Trump, stop with all the games.
E: Lol people really seem to think the average dem wants people to be hurt to the point where they fantasize about it. The same side fighting for health rights, trans rights, etc. While the other side is literally waving Nazi flags in the open. I get it, you want to vote third party. But the reality is 3rd party won’t win, you have an ability to impact the outcome and move the needle in the right direction but overly rigged morals will result in you not helping anyone at all when you could have.
So you voted for someone you know won’t get elected. So you’re ok with the worse of the two between Dem and Rep? Because you had a chance to help prevent the worse of the two coming into office and didn’t. Choosing to cast a vote that won’t impact the outcome helps literally no one. The Gaza situation is not all that is happening in the world.
But you realize that a Dem or Rep is who will be president. And they won’t handle the situation exactly the same. So you’re allowing the person who will handle it worse a better chance to be in power. That is literally what you’ve done. So if the worst happens, the option you could have helped prevent, just know you had a chance to make it less bad and decided your conscious was worth more than people’s lives.
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn’t.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It’s obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won’t get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you’ve not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won’t need it, it won’t change anything.
Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won’t say she’d do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.
I’m not and have never in this post debated about who will fund what. They made a moral stance that “There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.” My point was to show how flawed that stance is. Which people still seem to disagree with. It seems like to most people giving $10 to Israel or $10 Billion is the same thing and causes the same amount of harm. Nothing but rigid morals that end up hurting more people in the long run.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn’t going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can’t.
Saying some BS like a group of people fantasizes about people getting hurt, yeah that sounds very on brand for Trump and people who follow him.
Also, assuming who someone is voting for is not a straw man lol, might wanna look up the term. And when someone says being pragmatic is bad, yeah, sounds like a Trump voter. Pragmatic literally means: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Look it up.
If you think that’s bad then you’re literally living in a fantasy world of theories and what ifs. Kinda like his tariffs idea or injecting bleach, or a million other stupid ideas he’s had.
I suppose that’s easier than stepping out of the echo chamber and engaging with conflicting points of view. Ignoring people who disagree with you or have opposing views is not a good way to operate or have a good world view. You can disagree with me, sure, and I disagree with you. But I’m not going to just blindly down vote you and assume you’re wrong, that’s ignorant.
buddy, half of the comments on this post are libs fantasizing about mass deportations, and acting smug the whole time. they cannot wait to say “I told you so” when the camps get built. stop kidding yourself.
Lol half the comments? Really? I just scrolled and don’t see 1 in 2 comments being about fantasizing about mass deportation. Almost like you’re being just as hyperbolic as the comic is lol.
Yah ok, and what part of that was me fantasizing about people getting hurt? Can you quote the part you’re referring to? This is me being upset that they didn’t help prevent more harm. If anything it shows that I don’t want people to get hurt and am upset that they are enabling it.
No average dem is fantasizing about Republicans hurting people. This is nonsense, pathetic, and textbook straw man, all your word salad doesn’t change this. We get it, you like Trump, stop with all the games.
E: Lol people really seem to think the average dem wants people to be hurt to the point where they fantasize about it. The same side fighting for health rights, trans rights, etc. While the other side is literally waving Nazi flags in the open. I get it, you want to vote third party. But the reality is 3rd party won’t win, you have an ability to impact the outcome and move the needle in the right direction but overly rigged morals will result in you not helping anyone at all when you could have.
I’m not voting for genocide. In fact I already voted against genocide.
The Dems nor Republicans have a candidate that is against genocide.
So you voted for someone you know won’t get elected. So you’re ok with the worse of the two between Dem and Rep? Because you had a chance to help prevent the worse of the two coming into office and didn’t. Choosing to cast a vote that won’t impact the outcome helps literally no one. The Gaza situation is not all that is happening in the world.
I’m not ever going to vote for a genocide, and there is no moral high ground if you do .
But you realize that a Dem or Rep is who will be president. And they won’t handle the situation exactly the same. So you’re allowing the person who will handle it worse a better chance to be in power. That is literally what you’ve done. So if the worst happens, the option you could have helped prevent, just know you had a chance to make it less bad and decided your conscious was worth more than people’s lives.
There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.
Yes, yes there is. Omfg. Honestly look at this and tell me there isn’t.
If there are 3 candidates.
Candidate A wants to spend 100 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate B wants to spend 1 mil a month arming people to commit genocide.
Candidate C wants no spending.
It’s obvious candidate A is much worse, 100x worse actually. Now if candidate A and B are very close in who will win, while candidate C has 0 chance how can you best help people. Voting for candidate C does nothing. They won’t get elected. But voting for candidate B prevents as much death as you are able. By voting for C you are one less vote against A. So if A wins, you’ve not prevented that in any way and have enabled 100x more death than B. If you want to stop death you need to look at the situation and see how you can have impact. Being overly idealistic can end up hurting you, like voting for C and changing nothing when you had a chance to save lives.
There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won’t need it, it won’t change anything.
Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won’t say she’d do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.
I’m not and have never in this post debated about who will fund what. They made a moral stance that “There is no better or worse in actively arming and participating in a genocide.” My point was to show how flawed that stance is. Which people still seem to disagree with. It seems like to most people giving $10 to Israel or $10 Billion is the same thing and causes the same amount of harm. Nothing but rigid morals that end up hurting more people in the long run.
Your hypothetical is false, though, the Dems and Reps have been working together to support genocide. The GOP isn’t going to go harder on it than the DNC already have been, because they can’t.
Oh, I assure you… they can, and they will.
Removed by mod
They’re in this thread, from your instance. Just scroll up.
Pot meets kettle. So I guess all of that talk about “strawmen” was just projection. Okay. I see what you did there.
Saying some BS like a group of people fantasizes about people getting hurt, yeah that sounds very on brand for Trump and people who follow him.
Also, assuming who someone is voting for is not a straw man lol, might wanna look up the term. And when someone says being pragmatic is bad, yeah, sounds like a Trump voter. Pragmatic literally means: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Look it up.
If you think that’s bad then you’re literally living in a fantasy world of theories and what ifs. Kinda like his tariffs idea or injecting bleach, or a million other stupid ideas he’s had.
I see you are now trying to construct a new straw man. You might want to look up the term “projection.” Go ahead, look it up.
What strawman am I making? What?
Lightor at this point I dont even need to read your comments, I just read you name and autmatically skip to downvote.
I suppose that’s easier than stepping out of the echo chamber and engaging with conflicting points of view. Ignoring people who disagree with you or have opposing views is not a good way to operate or have a good world view. You can disagree with me, sure, and I disagree with you. But I’m not going to just blindly down vote you and assume you’re wrong, that’s ignorant.
buddy, half of the comments on this post are libs fantasizing about mass deportations, and acting smug the whole time. they cannot wait to say “I told you so” when the camps get built. stop kidding yourself.
Lol half the comments? Really? I just scrolled and don’t see 1 in 2 comments being about fantasizing about mass deportation. Almost like you’re being just as hyperbolic as the comic is lol.
You were in this thread though, lmao.
Yah I was, and I’m not fantasizing about hurting anyone.
You absolutely were.
Cool, where did I say it? Quote me.
Right here.
Yah ok, and what part of that was me fantasizing about people getting hurt? Can you quote the part you’re referring to? This is me being upset that they didn’t help prevent more harm. If anything it shows that I don’t want people to get hurt and am upset that they are enabling it.
You are upset at people protesting genocide, and saying anything bad that happens is their fault for not supporting genocide.