Epstein was just as tight compadres with Bill Clinton.

Not wanting to commit genocide is a pretty moderate position, sure.

Kamala was DA and vice president, among a bunch of other stuff. Newsom is governor of California. What point is it you think youre making?
I can say with certainty more people would be hurt under newsom '28 than the current Trump regime, because Newsom would, at best, just keep this shit trucking, but people like you wouldnt care, since a democrat was in charge. Like how none of you gave a shit about Gaza or police violence or suppression of protesters or breaking strikes or [list continues] under Biden

There’s plenty of high-ranking, influential, democrats that could be as influential as Kamala, why are you acting like Biden '20 and Kamala '24 was some fluke? And why are you singling out Netanyahu? Its not just these three people, its quite obviously the whole structure.

Its pretty affirming to see all the people bemoaning the loss of USAID, only to, at best, make a vague gesture towards “some accussations” of wrongdoing. Just constantly showing they asses.

Neat! Or whatever, I couldnt really give a fuck what you believe or your reaction is or whatever. I dont live in the fantasy-land you construct in order to avoid engaging with basic concepts, I live in the world where you dont vote “for or against policies” you vote for a party or a politician and that group or person uses the vote as a point of support for their policies. I think im going to end my interaction with this discussion here, because there’s nothing to gain from it at this point, its pretty clear you just want to play make-pretend.

Do you people pretend to be dense on purpose or something? Why do you insist on spending so much energy on constructing a simulacra of what those that disagree with you believe, instead of just engaging with their beliefs?
The practical effects of voting for a warmonger is legitimising a warmonger. The practical effects of voting for someone else is legitimising someone else.

Yeah, Kamala, the candidate who had the entire DNC apparatus working all the tricks of the trade in order for her to get the nomination, that one. What makes you think the next candidate won’t also be a ghoul?

Sweet. Ableism. Funny how you types resort to it so easily.

Behaving like there is some huge difference between them is what is “head in the sand crazy.” The reasons for this observation have been listed throughout this thread, yet oddly enough none of you people manage to engage with any of the many comments giving explicit examples, nor do you manage to engage with any of the comments detailing the worldview. Which is odd. Its almost like you’re just here to argue and dont actually care about this at all.
Or maybe you just can’t handle investigating your own ideology or the faulty notions you hold.

Weird how none of the bluemaga people decided to engage with this comment. Surely their ideological framework, to which they cling so rigidly, is based on a sound understanding of history and they have an adequate response to this basic listing of events occurring under democrat leadership.
Then again this is the most important election and it was probably the parla- palar- parmesanian that made them do it.

Yeah and it was actually Tim and the parliamentarians fault that we didnt get what we wanted. Oh shucks! We’ll get them next time!

In reality no 2028 Dem candidate will be like Biden on foreign affairs.

Kamala ran on having the same policies as Biden. What makes you think the next one won’t?

If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”.

Why do you types insist on pretending that you’re more obtuse than a caveman? Do you pretend not to understand arguments because you know you cannot make it in a straightforward discussion ?

Voting third party would be the correct choice.

If you put faith in the electoral system, yes. Glas we agree.

The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support.

As did your statement that voted despite certain policies. As I’ve detailed, that doesn’t matter.

Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth.

So you admit politicians claim legitimacy from votes. Neat. What isn’t logical is then continuing to support them, when that is what they do.
Again, the rest of your spiel is pointless. What matters is the practical reality of what a vote is and does, which you’ve admitted yourself is a sign that you support that politician. You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel good about voting for genociding police-state fascists, the police state fascists only care that you vote for them, not why.

It would be nice to find out, seeing as how the current strategy of voting blue no matter what very observably leads to genocide and less and less differences between the two parties.

The dems are also running a domestic child crusher. You people just don’t notice or care until a republican is in charge.

Since we’re doing hypotheticals I’ll declare Kamala would have dropped even more bombs than Trump. Since there’s no way to know and we seemingly have to ignore all things leading up to Trump getting elected, then that means I win and you have to vote for who I say now.

Write in Hillary Clinton.

Hey wasn’t it Joe Biden who was a fervent supporter of Israel while he was pretending he wasn’t? What was it Kamala said about him? Was it something about she would have done as he did? Damn that’s crazy, good things all those missiles and guns and bullets and money didnt work until Trump came into power.

Okay? In that case I declare I dont really believe it matters whether you vote for a democrat or a republican since they’re the same. There we go, I win, thats that discussion.

I dont really care what you believe, especially when the observable reality is one that differs from what you’d like it to be. It matters to politicians whether or not people vote for them and they use it to determine how much appeasement to capital they can get away with. Politicians do not walk around and ask voters whether they got the vote in spite of a policy or not. They win and, correctly, assume that the course they’ve kept is one they can continue on.

On top of that they use the amount of votes they receive as legitimising their rule. They quote it in speeches, they use it in their retrospectives, it is the foundation on which they rest their claim of experience when they train new generations and when they try to push legislation through. Voting for a politician signals you support them and their policy, thats what a vote is.

Authoritarianism is a meaningless word created by an actual anti-semite as a way to minimise the Holocaust by claiming the Soviet Union and the Nazis where the same because they both used state power to do things. Every state is authoritarian, all it is is a word to describe enemy-countries, like saying “regime” instead of government

Doing something that hasnt been done has not been proven to do anything because it hasnt been done. Voting democrat has only accelerated the orphan-killer, so I struggle to see how legitimising the people who want to kill orphans could in any way be a more effective way to stop them than doing the bare minimum of not legitimising them.