Numbnutz, clown, shill. Very convincing rhetoric. If the 100,000 in Michigan who voted uncommitted had heard these eloquent shibboleths, surely they would have changed their minds.
Do what you want in the primaries. That is the time for it (although not voting doesn’t do anything still). We are obviously talking about the general.
That’s not one of the options though. You get to pick which genocide. You either get restrained genocide, or full genocide with a side of dismantling American democracy.
You mean critical thinking?
As soon as it’s assured Trump loses, and the subsequent cou de tat is quelled, you can all camp the White House front lawn and shake the fences, throw red paint, call old Biden an accessory to murder. Fill your boots.
But not before.
Balancing on the tightrope with hell yawning below, is hardly the time to consider changing your shoelaces.
As soon as it’s assured Trump loses, and the subsequent cou de tat is quelled, you can all camp the White House front lawn and shake the fences, throw red paint, call old Biden an accessory to murder. Fill your boots.
None of that will cause any structural change, which is why it is permitted
How can we reshape the United States such that genocide is never permitted again?
Letting the most immoral thing happen as you sit on your hands isn’t a moral victory on your part. It’s a moral failing. If you had the chance to save ten people but one of them had to die, and you choose to let all of them die, you didn’t do something moral.
You can pretend to yourself that your making a stand that matters, but any rational person see that you are choosing to let more harm be done because you can’t stand to do something a little dirty but better. It’s weak, not moral. We sometimes have to do the thing we wish we didn’t in order to get the best outcome possible.
You don’t clean your toilet because you enjoy it. You clean it because it needs to be done, and sometimes getting a little dirty is better than letting things get worse.
If I have kids, I genuinely hope they ask me that. I hope they get angry at me, because the concept of a tacit genocide supporter being the lesser evil is unthinkable. I want them to live in a world where there aren’t moral conundrums like that, and the closest they come to them is in gritty video games and academic hypotheticals.
I’m willing to support the lesser evil and have blood on my hands so they can live in a better world and condemn me for it. I will be thrilled if that comes to pass.
Stein thinks the US forced Russia into invading Ukraine and doesn’t support US aid or involvement for Ukrainians. Hardly unexpected, since she’s dined with Russian oligarchs at anniversary dinners for RT.
As far as I’m concerned, she’s Genocide Jill. I don’t recall her criticizing RT when someone on there suggested drowning Ukrainian children.
>she’s dined with Russian oligarchs at anniversary dinners for RT.
this contains both misinformation and innuendo. she went to one dinner, and she paid her own way. RT was one of the few outlets that would give her air time during her 2012 presidential bid, which is more of a commentary on the corporate media and political parties than on anything she’s ever done.
I have a strict “no genocide” policy. Candidates that promote, endorse, allow, or sit idly by and let others do genocide are gonna be a no go from me.
It’s not going to change unless we make demands.
Removed by mod
Numbnutz, clown, shill. Very convincing rhetoric. If the 100,000 in Michigan who voted uncommitted had heard these eloquent shibboleths, surely they would have changed their minds.
Do what you want in the primaries. That is the time for it (although not voting doesn’t do anything still). We are obviously talking about the general.
Not to mention the 19% of voters in Minnesota who voted uncommitted
How about you make demands all the time instead of only when it’s politically convenient for people who don’t give a shit?
Because that’s exactly how you will get steamrolled. You’re lucky there’s people like us looking out for people like you.
It’s The White Man’s Burden.
That’s not one of the options though. You get to pick which genocide. You either get restrained genocide, or full genocide with a side of dismantling American democracy.
Tell your kids how you rationalized voting for genocide.
Happily, and I’ll teach them how to do the same, when necessary. Unlike your parents apparently.
Sometimes there’s no good choice, only bad and worse. That’s how life works and I’m sad your parents never prepared you for that.
Why?
And what conclusions can be drawn about who does and does not hold power in the United States?
And what should be done to the United States to correct this?
You mean critical thinking?
As soon as it’s assured Trump loses, and the subsequent cou de tat is quelled, you can all camp the White House front lawn and shake the fences, throw red paint, call old Biden an accessory to murder. Fill your boots.
But not before.
Balancing on the tightrope with hell yawning below, is hardly the time to consider changing your shoelaces.
PS it’s French, so not very intuitive in its spelling:
Coup d’état
Right you are
None of that will cause any structural change, which is why it is permitted
How can we reshape the United States such that genocide is never permitted again?
So just keep quiet for the next 6 months as Gaza starves?
That sounds bad. But you have to remember that they’re brown and Muslim. Which means it’s OK.
Fish don’t have any feelings, which makes it ok to eat them. Same logic applies here.
Remember to vote blue no matter who. And always remember that the United States is a good country filled with moral people
Letting the most immoral thing happen as you sit on your hands isn’t a moral victory on your part. It’s a moral failing. If you had the chance to save ten people but one of them had to die, and you choose to let all of them die, you didn’t do something moral.
You can pretend to yourself that your making a stand that matters, but any rational person see that you are choosing to let more harm be done because you can’t stand to do something a little dirty but better. It’s weak, not moral. We sometimes have to do the thing we wish we didn’t in order to get the best outcome possible.
You don’t clean your toilet because you enjoy it. You clean it because it needs to be done, and sometimes getting a little dirty is better than letting things get worse.
If I have kids, I genuinely hope they ask me that. I hope they get angry at me, because the concept of a tacit genocide supporter being the lesser evil is unthinkable. I want them to live in a world where there aren’t moral conundrums like that, and the closest they come to them is in gritty video games and academic hypotheticals.
I’m willing to support the lesser evil and have blood on my hands so they can live in a better world and condemn me for it. I will be thrilled if that comes to pass.
I expect to have Jill Stein and cornel west on my ballot.
Stein thinks the US forced Russia into invading Ukraine and doesn’t support US aid or involvement for Ukrainians. Hardly unexpected, since she’s dined with Russian oligarchs at anniversary dinners for RT.
As far as I’m concerned, she’s Genocide Jill. I don’t recall her criticizing RT when someone on there suggested drowning Ukrainian children.
What are West’s positions on Ukraine?
>What are West’s positions on Ukraine
i’ve heard him say similar things to jill, but also that the shooting needs to stop.
>Stein thinks the US forced Russia into invading Ukraine
she never said that. she has said it was an illegal invasion, though.
>she’s dined with Russian oligarchs at anniversary dinners for RT.
this contains both misinformation and innuendo. she went to one dinner, and she paid her own way. RT was one of the few outlets that would give her air time during her 2012 presidential bid, which is more of a commentary on the corporate media and political parties than on anything she’s ever done.
Neither of which are options.
if they are in the ballot, they are options
That’s not how it works. Either Biden or Trump will win. Anything else, you might as well not vote.
there are reasons to vote besides choosing the winner, like getting another party over the 5% threshold.
That hasn’t meant anything in the past. It’s happened before, and nothing changed regarding their viability.
when? when did they get federal campaign funding?
> That’s not how it works
you are literally allowed to choose anyone on the ballot. you’re spreading election misinformation
You’re allowed to not vote, which is what voting 3rd party is.
this is more election misinformation
where did you get your crystal ball?
Civics class.
sounds to me like you’re trying to suppress the vote of leftists.
Removed by mod
Jill Stein, yes, Cornell West? I wouldn’t bet on it. He’s 2 for 50 so far… I guess if you live in Alaska or Oregon, you’re in luck.
He’s going to wish he stayed the Green candidate.
Either way, they’ll pull a tiny segment of the vote and won’t win a single state, just like always.
jill says they’re on track to hit 5% this november. that’s something worth voting for.
Hey, there’s a first time for anything…
2020:
Libertarian - 1.18%
Green - 0.26% (Howie Hawkins)
2016:
Libertarian - 3.28%
Green - 1.07% (Jill Stein)
2012:
Libertarian - 0.99%
Green - 0.36% (Jill Stein)
2008:
Ralph Nader - 0.56%
Libertarian - 0.40%
Constitution - 0.15%
Green - 0.12% (Cynthia McKinney)
2004:
Ralph Nader - 0.38%
Libertarian - 0.32%
Constitution - 0.12%
Green - 0.10% (David Cobb)
2000:
Green - 2.74% (Ralph Nader)
Reform - 0.43% (Pat Buchanen)
Libertarian - 0.36%
Constitution - 0.09%
Natural Law - 0.08%
In order to hit 5%, she would have to do twice as well as Nader did in 2000.
That is never going to happen.
are you suggesting a politician would get in front of a camera and just lie??
She’s probably hopeful, delusionally so, but hopeful.
Nobody running for President is going to come out and just admit “Ok, yeah, I have trouble breaking 1%… but THIS TIME…”