this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
-99 points (26.5% liked)
Memes
45171 readers
1760 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Point me in the direction of your preferred candidate then.
If I could pick anyone, it would be Claudia De La Crúz, but even if I vote for her she won't win. I just want Liberals to stop pretending that voting for Harris will cease the genocide, because it won't, and it's monstrous to suggest otherwise.
Yep, you're right that she wouldn't win and you would be propping up Trump by voting for her. I don't see any "liberals" saying she'll stop the genocide, either. I only see you bringing up that point in this thread.
Actually I'd be propping up Kamala by not voting for Trump.
Read the thread, there are plenty of people on this thread pretending Harris will be better for Palestine, which is a lie.
There are two people, by definition one is better. So you saying her being better is a lie must mean you think Trump is better. Which is insane.
This is a new level of liberal gymnastics, lmao.
Materially, if Trump and Kamala approve the same genocidal weapon shipments, regardless of their individual feelings, what changes? Do you think Trump has fascist magic that makes the bombs Kamala promised to send anyways more deadly?
No, but if you look beyond a single isolated thing you're crusading for your realize that sending weapons over seas isn't the only power the president has. The president can make the world much worse beyond a single conflict in the middle east.
You can't see being that single issue. Other people are looking at long reaching impact. If my your admission they both want to send bombs, then look at what else they are doing. Try to effect some level of change and take action instead of just judging and bitching.
A bit nasty to describe genocide as "a single conflict in the middle east," but regardless, the GOP and DNC are aligned on foreign policy.
Nasty? Is it multiple conflicts, is it not in the middle east? Or are you just mad and want to use inflammatory words to drive a discussion off feelings not reality.
The reality is that it's genocide, using passive language is a rhetorical strategy to downplay the internationally recognized genocide.
I'm not down playing anything, it's you assuming and wanting to be extreme. Why don't you call it the murder of innocent children, are you trying to play it down by using a single word?
Jesus, it's not even about the issues with people like you, it's just an excuse to feel righteous and go after people.
Surely you can see tha difference between "conflict," which implies roughly equal power and moral responsibility, and "genocide," which depicts the situation accurately as Israel carries out its extermination campaign, right? Like, you aren't denying that "conflict" is more passive than genocide, correct? Moreover, you called it "a single conflict," designed explicitly to downplay it.
Correct your vebage, otherwise it's clear that you're acting as a Zionist.
It does not imply that at all, that's a massive assumption on your end that you use as a point to press. Throughout history the term conflict has be used to talk about many wars/battles and not all of them were equal, at all.
I'm saying I'm a conflict there can be genocide. But if anything genocide doesn't even capture the full scale of what's happening beyond the pointless killings. Conflict is a much broader scope, including things like economic impact, infrastructure damage to the county, etc. It's not one or three other. I agree genocide is bad and this conflict is bad and you're arguing with me about how I'm not saying it's bad enough because I used a word you don't fully understand. What are you even doing?
You need to educate yourself on the terms being used and stop making assumptions then using those assumptions to label people. You're mindset, while focused on something different, is bordering on MAGA.
It absolutely does, this is silly.
We were using the term "genocide," you changed it to "a single conflict in the Middle East." You swapped the language.
Scratched liberal starts projecting, who could've predicted?
That's not what you said. You originally said "cease the genocide", which neither candidate will do and no one here is saying otherwise.
Plenty are, and plenty are saying Trump will make it worse through fascist magic and warlockery.
He will make it worse, because he is a fascist. It's not magic, basic knowledge of how congress and fascism work. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it "magic".
So if a fascist takes office, bipartisan agreemants based on preset budgets magically shift, and cause the shipments to increase in magnitude? Sounds like magic to me.
Those budgets get changed constantly, and if you think Trump and the GOP won't change them you're a bigger idiot than I initially realized.
The GOP is aligned with the DNC in this matter, the DNC is not blocking anything nor is the GOP pushing for more. Both are in agreement. If the GOP gets more congress seats, the anti-genocide section of the DNC still can't change anything.