Idk, he's sponsoring a genocide. I'm pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it's not like any US president in the last half century hasn't been some kind of war criminal.

I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor's refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that's true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you're celebrating.

I don't know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it's lost any punch it ever had.

Edit: typically, the only responses seem to think I'm saying this in support of Trump but like... I'm not. So if you remove that imagined motivation, where's the lie? There isn't one, right?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The other guy, the one with 34 felonies, has said he'd help expand the genocide.

How do you miss these things?

[–] Excrubulent -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?

I have the answer: because that's how the two party system works to push you towards defending the genocide guy.

Like, you get that the genocide support has a good chance of making him lose to the somehow-worse-genocide-guy, right? Like why aren't you mad about that? Why do you constantly have to tell everyone to stop talking about the genocide support? You realise that's a kind of genocide denial, right?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There are exactly two options here. It's either the life long politician that's actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.

Gee, I don't know...

I'm also not a one issue voter.

[–] Excrubulent 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There are exactly two options with voting. I assume you don't see any others because your entire political imagination has been contracted to voting. I believe I anticipated your answer when I said that the two-party system has done this to your brain.

And "walking back" support of the genocide is one way to say that he hasn't actually removed any of the material support, and also a way to obscure the fact that the "walking back" has mostly been lip service.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Who else is a viable candidate for president this election?

[–] Excrubulent 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nobody.

Two questions:

Do you think I am somehow saying people shouldn't vote for Biden? If so, can you explain where I have said that?
Do you think the fact that Biden is the tactically superior choice means that we should not discuss that he is complicit in genocide?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Because that is the talking point for everyone that is obsessed with him sending arms to Israel.
See response one.

[–] Excrubulent 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You're begging the question.
So your focus on winning Biden the election necessitates genocide denial.
Not a denial that the genocide is happening, but a denial of holding the perpetrators accountable.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You're a broken record. Yes, we all know Biden and the American governments stance on Israel. You're not helping anyone repeating the same tired argument over and over and over and over. No one is denying anything. Wtf.

[–] Excrubulent -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So what is it? Should we not talk about it? Does it not matter? If you don't want me to read into it then have the courage of your convictions and say what you fucking mean instead of talking around it with "see answer to 1".

What do you propose we do about Biden's genocide support? Just shut up about it? What?

[–] SalutaryFilth@r.nf 6 points 5 months ago

I don't believe it's as unpopular as you think. The one-state (final) solution has been the only acceptable answer for decades, and everyone turned a blind eye to turning Gaza into a prison while "settlers" terraform the West Bank.

The other guy moved his embassy to disputed territory, firmly claiming the whole of Jerusalem for one side. "Their 911" plays a huge part in maufacturing consent in casual observers, and "never again" was always tongue-in-cheek.

Honestly, does anyone still care about the enslavement and cultural destruction of Chinese Uyghurs? How about the Rohingya genocide?

This election comes down to narcissistic boomers who believe the world should die with them. Their pop religion tells them armageddon will happen in their lifetime and the other guy is offering a way to make it happen.

Life has been objectively getting worse for years. The end of the world (or at least the american experiment) is on the ballot - the question is whether enough voters want to burn it all down.