Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
Should have mentioned that some smartass was gonna point that out for my Nostradamus points. In before someone pastes in that "rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy".
By the way, it's not true. If you throw in random letters it makes the text much harder to decipher. It's first, last and enough the rest in any order. Luckily, I figured out that lozen didn't mean "avocado" because I am very smart like that.
Should have mentioned that some smartass was gonna point that out for my Nostradamus points. In before someone pastes in that "rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy".
By the way, it's not true. If you throw in random letters it makes the text much harder to decipher. It's first, last and enough the rest in any order. Luckily, I figured out that lozen didn't mean "avocado" because I am very smart like that.
Fact-checking Trump and not Kamala doesn't negate the batshit crazy garbage Trump was saying
To the last Ukranian is what Ukranians are saying, if thatÂ’s what you think is happening. ItÂ’s a proxy war in the sense that we donÂ’t want Russia to start randomly annexing its neighbors for its geostrategic reasons, and we support the Ukranian peopleÂ’s fight to maintain their country and internationally recognized borders. How evil of us to support a just war and not stand back while thereÂ’s a genocide ag
You just eat the propaganda of these people making millions in the defense industry like you are tossing popcorn in your mouth at a movie. Thinking there is such a thing as a just war should be a sign of mental illness. But it's a crazy world.
Randomly? I mean there is a whole thread to give context to Russia's entry into the violence fomented by the U.S. (or NATO if you prefer) and the extreme right (def including many neo nazis) of Ukraine.
Do you remember when Zelensky was seen awkwardly alone at the NATO summit? I can only imagine what it's like to know, for sure, that you will be turned into a meme of, if not loneliness, the feeling of being hung out to dry. The small man in his military acting costume trying desperately not to look desperate. That's the secret contempt NATO leadership has for Zelensky, naturally expressed due to not anticipating it and having a lapse in image management. You have to have contempt for people you are throwing into a meat grinder.
Then, after all that blood, they tell Ukraine no you can't be one of the cool kids after all. The social brutality is like watching someone beat a helpless cripple. After you've sent all your sons off to pointlessly die to "weaken Russia" they tell them you can get in only if you defeat Russia.
Genocide? The far right who took control of Ukraine in a coup started shelling ethnic Russians. Ukraine actually has (or had) one of the better armies in Europe. Plus they are armed by us, plus they have been training with NATO for years. That's a war, not a genocide. Genocide is the policy which you, eyes wide open, will be supporting when you cast your vote for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. You are the genocidal maniac, not Russia.
Voting for Harris or Trump isn't a vote for genocide. It's mostly a vote ignorant of Israel or anti-price gouging laws or the exact codifications of their tax codes or something or other, prioritizing other issues. Everyone weighs issues differently. Everyone pays attention to issues differently and is therefore more or less informed on different issues.
Personally, I'll vote neither largely because of Israel. But projecting those priorities on others is really dense.
Russia is a model for governing in peace …
It’s all US fault .
Russia is so peaceful , country like Sweden and other decided to nato lately .
I wonder why ….
Ah yes because the U.S. force them to under the threat of genocide from the U.S. .
All you have to do is look at what is happening in Springfield and Aurora to know who to vote for.
All you have to do is look at what is happening in Springfield and Aurora to know who to vote for.
You obviously can't look for it, that would defeat the ideological basis of modern day conservatism.
Instead you have to hear or read it about from your favorite political influencers or one of their followers.
Trust me, those guys don't want their audience to look for stuff.
All you have to do is look at what is happening in Springfield and Aurora to know who to vote for.
Yep. What's going on there is you and your fellow magtards started circulating stories that aren't true, which trump and vance latched on to and continue to circulate, which have triggered even more magtards to call in a stream of bomb threats.
Pretty easy choice for anyone with half a brain.
Yep. What's going on there is you and your fellow magtards started circulating stories that aren't true, which trump and vance latched on to and continue to circulate, which have triggered even more magtards to call in a stream of bomb threats.
Pretty easy choice for anyone with half a brain.
But bro, we have to vote for Trump coz morality and family values.
Voting for Harris or Trump isn't a vote for genocide. It's mostly a vote ignorant of Israel or anti-price gouging laws or the exact codifications of their tax codes or something or other, prioritizing other issues. Everyone weighs issues differently. Everyone pays attention to issues differently and is therefore more or less informed on different issues.
Personally, I'll vote neither largely because of Israel. But projecting those priorities
Projecting the priorities of politicians onto their supporters based on known and well discussed public policy positions seems trivially accurate to me. If someone says they are going to do X and you vote for them, then you are endorsing X to some degree. To what degree? It depends on how consequential an issue it is.
Now, sometimes, X isn't such a big deal and there are more important considerations than X. In this case we are talking about genocide. The policy is the mass slaughter of innocent people pursuant to an ethnic cleansing campaign decades in the making, set up by an illegal military occupation - basically the worst things human beings ever do to each other and what we build our ethics around avoiding. Additionally, the taking on of all of the geopolitical insecurity/risk generated by this genocide is a defacto policy position you are supporting by voting for either of these people. All signs point to this policy leading to an ever expanding conflict in which the many proxy belligerents have already declared for a side.
Once you rank any policy above genocide in importance you've lost your humanity. The Israeli genocide is the most consequential policy not from just a humanitarian perspective but also from a security perspective directly affecting the U.S. population. If you vote for Harris or Trump, you are speaking on that issue and you are saying genocide and any broader conflict it generates is acceptable.
Projecting the priorities of politicians onto their supporters based on known and well discussed public policy positions seems trivially accurate to me. If someone says they are going to do X and you vote for them, then you are endorsing X to some degree. To what degree? It depends on how consequential an issue it is.
.
Not in a 2 party system lol no. You can only claim that the whole package of proposals is preferred to the other whole package of proposals, nothing more than that.
And btw whatever happens outside of the country for most people is definitionally inconsequential. That you care a lot about foreigners doesn't mean you are better because you do, or that most people agree. Most people don't give a **** about people in other town in the same country, imagine how much they care about foreigners.
Then there is the "and there is no genocide happening", but even if there was, for most people it's irrelevant, if tomorrow the totality of palestianians worldwied die that matter less than a 10% increase in gasoline prices for most people, AND RIGHTLY SO, their life is affected more by the latter and normal human being are selfish (you are too, you just pretend not to be), extremely selfish, that's our biology.
You just eat the propaganda of these people making millions in the defense industry like you are tossing popcorn in your mouth at a movie. Thinking there is such a thing as a just war should be a sign of mental illness. But it's a crazy world.
Randomly? I mean there is a whole thread to give context to Russia's entry into the violence fomented by the U.S. (or NATO if you prefer) and the extreme right (def including many neo nazis) of Ukraine
Jesus how much did Russia pay you to write this post? You’re way too far gone mate I’m not even going to waste a single paragraph on you. Good luck being on the side of genocide.
Projecting the priorities of politicians onto their supporters based on known and well discussed public policy positions seems trivially accurate to me. If someone says they are going to do X and you vote for them, then you are endorsing X to some degree. To what degree? It depends on how consequential an issue it is.
Now, sometimes, X isn't such a big deal and there are more important considerations than X. In this case we are talking about
Most Americans have no clue what our role is in the matter.
I heard that Kamala Harris grew up in a middle class family is that true?
i'm pretty sure you're trolling me because i said she was misleading people in the debate when she said that and got absolutely attacked for that
her mom is a research biologist
her dad is a stanford professor
while there's definitely some low end research biology jobs, even those will pay above median salaries with a very uncapped long tail of earnings depending on what she was researching (but there were some teaching stints involved as well)
an average stanford professor makes like 260k a year
yes they did divorce when she was young but he was always part of her life and financially contributing
he didn't become a stanford prof until she was 8 years old
obviously they weren't making 260ishk back then but it would have been a similarly leveled salary that paid their professors several multiples above the median income range
so while she was not the child of a wealthy family, she was certainly from a household that was anywhere from top 10% to top 2% earners and having all those academic connections was also assuredly something which was considerably in her favor and she grew up far more priviledged than the overwhelming majority of americans
yes technically middle class, but to frame it that way was wrong because she still grew up far more priviledged than the vast majority of americans
biden - claims middle class and I guess it is valid but the family was very wealthy early on before his dad made some bad business decisions where he later had to get by as a used car salesman
trump - silver spoon new money ldo
obama - claims middle class and it's tricky to say
his father basically abandoned him, but his mother was from a well off family that can trace their lineage to plymouth colony and his ancestors built the first mill in new jersey, his grandfather owned furniture stores and his grandmother was a vp at a bank - they obviously had a lot of money and as a result sent barack to a very expensive prep school
his mother, while abandoned, had those wealthy parents who supported her and barack as she went eventually got her phd and the man she married was from an aristocratic indonesian family
w - silver spoon old money ldo
clinton - a bastard child who's mother was conned into thinking their marriage was legit as his dad had never divorced his 4th wife, dad was a door to door salesman who died before his birth in a car crash and was raised by his grandparents while he mom sought a nursing degree, the mom married well to a guy who owned a car dealership but was a degen gambler and alcoholic who beat clinton up until bill was big enough to fend for himself
HW - silver sppon old money
Reagan - grew up poorish - his dad was a store clerk who was an alcoholic
Carter - grew up very wealthy despite identifying as "simple peanut farmer" for example, as a teen his dad gave him real estate so he could learn what it was like to be a landlord with actual tenants
he can trace back his lineage to a colonist who came in 1635
Ford - this one is tricky as his mother left his father right after his birth because he was an abusive alcoholic but but his grandparents were very wealthy so there was family money
nixon - grew up as a poor quaker on a lemon ranch
lbj - another tricky one as he was born and lived in a part of texas so rural they had no electricity growing up, while his grandfather was a highly accomplished man and his father also a successful businessman and politician, he ended up making some bad business decisions and lost everything and never recovered so he grew up very poor
jfk - new money silver spoon
Eisenhower - tricky as he's an old american family able to trace their roots to 1741, his dad went to college (which only the wealthy would have done) but lost everything in a failed business venture so while he was from a well established family, he did grew up poor
truman - children of farmers but very wealthy farmers also heavily involved in livestock trading
i also heavily suspect the "but my dad lost it all" is lie commonly told by politicians to hide the privilege they grew up with as you can see, there's a remarkable commonality of that to which one must posit that it can't be a natural coincidence
either
A) they conveniently lied about their family money to appear more relatable as regular people
or
B) a key ingredient to forming a president is to shower them with wealth and privilege growing up and then take it all away while they are still kids
i'm pretty sure you're trolling me because i said she was misleading people in the debate when she said that and got absolutely attacked for that
her mom is a research biologist
her dad is a stanford professor
while there's definitely some low end research biology jobs, even those will pay above median salaries with a very uncapped long tail of earnings depending on what she was researching (but there were some teaching stints involved as well
No not trolling you but that seems to be her generic answer to every question . She lacks any substance and it’s showing
Fact-checking Trump and not Kamala doesn't negate the batshit crazy garbage Trump was saying
They are both crazy for sure. But why not press harder on Kamala for her changes. Like on fracking since it’s important to PA? Wouldn’t that make her supporters second guess. Seems like a lot of flip flopping right before the election.
No you are. But if I was it would be a strong argument as to the far right, ultra nationalist, racist aggressors in Kiev being the real genocide victims. So yeah, super sound argument there we just need to work on using premises that are true.
