The criterion is very simple: Don’t vote for genocide committers, enablers or planners. That excludes Biden and Trump.
If the Dems manage to produce a non genocide loving candidate, then vote vote vote and drag everyone who will vote for the non genocide candidate to the polling station.
You did the investigation yourself or you watched the news and believed whatever you heard? There are lots of versions of his motives, depending on who you’re listening to. I’m sure some far-right media outlet has “evidence” that Biden hired him.
If he just wanted to kill people, he would have taken more shots. Nothing in his past, that has been released at this point, shows he wanted to kill people for no reason. This was intentional, and seeing as he is a political figure, having this be politically motivated makes the most sense.
“I’d rather let someone who actively, aggressively advocates, enables, and wants genocide domestically and abroad to win the presidency, over voting for somebody who passively enables genocide to happen abroad because actively trying to stop it could ignite WWIII” is still a bad take.
It is hypocritical to delude yourself into believing voting for genocide is somehow not approving genocide. And i hardly doubt that stopping Israel from committing genocide in Gaza would ignite WW3.
If you mistake it for Ukraine, think about all the help Ukraine is not getting so Israel can get it instead. Dozens of Billions in Weapons to slaughter a civillian population instead of helping Ukraine defend itself against Russias invasion.
I’m not deluding myself about anything. The choice isn’t “vote for or against genocide” it’s “act to get less or more genocide”. It’s not a false dichotomy; if you’re not voting to defeat Trump, then you’re acting to get more genocide.
By not acting to defeat Trump, you’re enabling genocide more than Biden ever has.
In some takes on the trolley problem (do nothing, five people are run over by a trolley an die, flip a track change switch and two people are run over by a trolley and die) flipping the switch is the morally worse option because then those two people’s deaths are your fault, whereas the five people who die because you did nothing are someone else’s fault. I don’t agree with that take, but it’s taken seriously in philosophy circles.
I don’t get how in the Levant, where both Hamas and the Israelis have significant factions that want to genocide the other people, a situation where Hamas does the genociding (because an Israel without attack capability de facto also loses defense capability) is somehow more moral than a situation where Israel does it.
You are making multiple false assumptions in there. The first being that 2.000 pound bombs are somehow “defensive”. The next being that a 30.000 fighters Hamas would somehow genocide all of the settlers, despite their army having hundreds of thousands of members. Then it goes further with this idea, that they want to eradicate them, when all they want is to get their land back. The settlers always have the options to leave and go back to their home countries. Meanwhile Israel as a settler colonial project has to commit genocide to complete itself because as long as a Palestinian people exists, it will demand to get back to its rightful land. Finally you are wrong about the reasons why people in Palestine support violence. They do so, because it is the only thing protecting them from annihilation. For Israelis it is a mix between believing, they need to commit genocide as being the perpetrator protects them from being the victims, classic imperialist greed and a big portion of racism and fascism.
But in the end Israel will destroy itself from within as all fascist states do eventually. The question is how many more people the US helps them to murder in the meantime.
![[Mega thread] - Biden ends bid for presidency](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/9a2dc393-619f-4874-875e-80b5d90ecd3b.png){kind=link}
The criterion is very simple: Don’t vote for genocide committers, enablers or planners. That excludes Biden and Trump.
If the Dems manage to produce a non genocide loving candidate, then vote vote vote and drag everyone who will vote for the non genocide candidate to the polling station.
And what is your plan for stopping Trump’s planned genocides?
Unfortunately, talking about realistic plans will get you banned in this community
They aren’t realistic because no one with any credible ability to pull them off is making such plans. You sure aren’t leading the lynch mob.
Thomas Crooks is leading the mob.
The guy that had no political motives and was just trying to hit the highest valued target he could? That’s a piss poor leader.
That’s also true, but I’d say the bigger problem when it comes to his leadership skills is his complete lack of brain and other organ activity.
Biden already dropped.
That would be a much funnier joke if Biden hadn’t literally endorsed someone else to be the leader.
Also, I’m sure Biden’s spleen is just fine.
That’s your interpretation of his motives.
Yes, because that’s where the evidence leads. I do tend to form my interpretations of things based on evidence.
You did the investigation yourself or you watched the news and believed whatever you heard? There are lots of versions of his motives, depending on who you’re listening to. I’m sure some far-right media outlet has “evidence” that Biden hired him.
If he just wanted to kill people, he would have taken more shots. Nothing in his past, that has been released at this point, shows he wanted to kill people for no reason. This was intentional, and seeing as he is a political figure, having this be politically motivated makes the most sense.
If the leader of your great revolution is a corpse, I think you have big problems.
Corpse, Martyr, similar but different.
From 6ft underground?
I think that’s a requirement for being a martyr.
I had this discussion with someone a couple weeks ago and was surprised to learn that it’s not.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/martyr
Interesting. Well, martyr nonetheless.
Removed by mod
“I’d rather let someone who actively, aggressively advocates, enables, and wants genocide domestically and abroad to win the presidency, over voting for somebody who passively enables genocide to happen abroad because actively trying to stop it could ignite WWIII” is still a bad take.
It’s baffling and hypocritical.
It is hypocritical to delude yourself into believing voting for genocide is somehow not approving genocide. And i hardly doubt that stopping Israel from committing genocide in Gaza would ignite WW3.
If you mistake it for Ukraine, think about all the help Ukraine is not getting so Israel can get it instead. Dozens of Billions in Weapons to slaughter a civillian population instead of helping Ukraine defend itself against Russias invasion.
I’m not deluding myself about anything. The choice isn’t “vote for or against genocide” it’s “act to get less or more genocide”. It’s not a false dichotomy; if you’re not voting to defeat Trump, then you’re acting to get more genocide.
By not acting to defeat Trump, you’re enabling genocide more than Biden ever has.
In some takes on the trolley problem (do nothing, five people are run over by a trolley an die, flip a track change switch and two people are run over by a trolley and die) flipping the switch is the morally worse option because then those two people’s deaths are your fault, whereas the five people who die because you did nothing are someone else’s fault. I don’t agree with that take, but it’s taken seriously in philosophy circles.
I don’t get how in the Levant, where both Hamas and the Israelis have significant factions that want to genocide the other people, a situation where Hamas does the genociding (because an Israel without attack capability de facto also loses defense capability) is somehow more moral than a situation where Israel does it.
You are making multiple false assumptions in there. The first being that 2.000 pound bombs are somehow “defensive”. The next being that a 30.000 fighters Hamas would somehow genocide all of the settlers, despite their army having hundreds of thousands of members. Then it goes further with this idea, that they want to eradicate them, when all they want is to get their land back. The settlers always have the options to leave and go back to their home countries. Meanwhile Israel as a settler colonial project has to commit genocide to complete itself because as long as a Palestinian people exists, it will demand to get back to its rightful land. Finally you are wrong about the reasons why people in Palestine support violence. They do so, because it is the only thing protecting them from annihilation. For Israelis it is a mix between believing, they need to commit genocide as being the perpetrator protects them from being the victims, classic imperialist greed and a big portion of racism and fascism.
But in the end Israel will destroy itself from within as all fascist states do eventually. The question is how many more people the US helps them to murder in the meantime.
Does… does Harris meet your criterion?