Except that isn’t true. By ceding your choice, you enable the worse outcome. That’s fine by you thought because really you’re an accelerationist above all else. Hasten the burn, you want to pickup the ashes

I actually think things are uniquely bad right now for my lifetime and were made worse by Ralph nader voters like you

I realize I’m running a foul of approved Lemmy talking points but voting for your dog and persistent at ot forever don’t seem realistic to me

LMAO you already decided how you’re gonna respond and reply this to everyone critical of this very tired “meme”

Nice one dude

Removed by mod

You’ve been given it once already.
That you manage to get this far into the comment section and not engage with any of the many comments of substance is an indictment of you, not the userbase here.

Y’all americans should never have been given independence, you’re clearly unfit to govern yourselves.

Europe is a bunch of US vassal states continually shooting themselves in the foot and growing further reliant on the US because they’re freaking out about Russia wanting NATO to uphold its treaties.
The British Commonwealth is full of decrepit racists that can’t even keep themselves from starving or their countries from burning.
So whereever you come from youre not doing better.

You are saying that genocide would happen no matter what, whether you are intending to or not.

“Yeah well genocide is happening anyway, bet you feel stupid about not letting me have treats now, don’t you?”

you are disgusting

Roe v. Wade was overturned during Biden’s term, deportation was a campaign promise from Kamala.

And the way you resign on the genocide being inevitable and doomed to keep going is what makes you a fucking privileged monster.

I’m not ignoring it, however I would have been able to ignore the destruction of women’s reproductive rights, the mass scale trampling of due process for deportations,

So you are ignoring it. Funny to mention a bunch of things that occurred under democrat leadership by the way, was that on purpose? Anyway, read the link, since you are so set on discussing, so we can actually have a discussion of substance.

Fuck off, genocide denier

No, I’m taking your argument: “If a war were to be waged with Iran, you would prefer it would be waged by Kamala, because then it would be done competently” and pointing out your main issue with the war in Iran is how it is waged. The rest of your argument is: “I don’t think Kamala would go to war with Iran.” So, while you make allusions, the only actual objection you place to the war is that it is waged incompetently.

You know, how I first took one part of your comment, and then the other, until I had addressed the whole. You should try it.

I am then making an assumption, which is unfalsifiable, that if a war were waged with Iran under democratic leadership, you would not find it disagreeable, because you would buy into the propaganda that would be used to make you accept it.
Probably something about the inflated number of dead protesters. Or some pinkwashing.

edit: How about you adress the rest of the comment?

the argument that always springs up around American election-time

It’s extremely fucking demonstrative of how much liberals completely go out to brunch politically between elections that they think this argument only springs up at elections and hasn’t been what we’ve been saying consistently the whole time

Lmfao, what a load of horse shit.

if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora

Would she? Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan created a humanitarian crisis, people were starving to death. Getting humanitarian aid would be dependent on them overthrowing the government. This is the whole argument behind economic sanctions, in every country they they subject to them - if the people are suffering, they’ll blame their own government and revolt.

This is, in many cases, delusional, or more about wanting to “do something” to look strong to voters. Because the Democratic party is assumed to be more progressive, they sometimes go even further in order to prove that they’re not soft and weak. This was the same logic behind mass incarceration under Clinton.

Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.

Did the Republican-controlled Congress ever do anything to stop Obama from continuing the war in Afghanistan? Those people fucking love war. Every one of them is in bed with the military-industrial complex, as long as bombs are dropping, they’re thrilled.

So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote

To be precise, my position is not that they’re equally bad, but that they’re both fundamentally unacceptable. I cannot envision a future either of them would lead us to where we are not completely and totally fucked.

Four years of Biden brought declining economic conditions, record military spending, countless dead in Palestine, and four years closer to ecological collapse. When the average American sees that, they’re going to be dissatisfied and want change, which is why Trump won. What would four years of Harris get us? According to her, she wouldn’t do anything differently and refused to distinguish herself from him in any way. So, it’s reasonable to assume that things would continue in that direction, the same way they have for decades, across both Democratic and Republican administrations. Even if they somehow squeaked out a win in 2024, they would lose in 2028.

This whole mentality of lesser evilism is based on accepting the choices we’re presented with and trying to make the best of it. But my approach is to start at what actually needs to happen, and then try to work out how to get there. The crises we’re facing (climate change, for example) are part of the physical world, governed by the laws of physics. What a political system is capable of doing is only governed by human laws, by human norms and customs. If there is a disconnect between what a human system says it can do, and what a physical system says needs to happen, then the human system will bend and break. Either the rules of what our political system treats as possible will bend now, or they will break later, when, for example, cities are flooded and millions of climate refugees are starving at the border.

There is a giant boulder headed straight towards us, and one party denies it exists at all while the other acknowledges that there’s a boulder, but says that saying we should step out of the way is unrealistic, unamerican, and probably somehow antisemitic.

From a physical perspective, what needs to happen are drastic fundamental, changes to the system, because none of this shit is sustainable. If the political system does not give us that option, if we are only offered options that completely refuse to bend to what is physically necessary, then the political system is simply broken and destined to fail, and all we can do is prepare for that.

And the best way I can see to prepare for that is to call out it’s inevitable failure and to distance myself from the people responsible. Because as the system is failing, the far-right are the only ones positioning themselves as an “alternative” (even though, as the Iran War demonstrates, they’re just more of the same), and if that’s the only alternative then that’s where people will turn. There needs to be a left-wing movement that can plausibly distance itself from the establishment’s failure and can be ready to step in and pick up the pieces, or else the far-right will be the only game in town.

Tl;dr: When shit hits the fan (and it’s going to) people are going to find their ideas of what’s “politically possible” changing very rapidly. We need to be presenting a real alternative and not be associating ourselves with the people actively launching shit towards the fan.

“How can you say Harris would be the same as Trump? She would have prosecuted the brutal war of aggression competently!”

And this is why BlueMaga are just as fascist as their red counterpart

The point is though, USA’s ill treatment of those states hurt a major source of the USA’s own soft and hard power.

Yes. That is a good thing. The USA is a genocidal imperialist fascist oligarchy. Making it a less effective agent of capitalism is a positive.

You may say losing that power is better, well that’s great, I’m glad you are getting what you want from Trump.

Thank you. Normally when people are engaged in an argument and they present the expected counterargument, they usually have some refutation of it. Especially if they present it with the framing “you may say…”

it wouldn’t be waged this illegally, and it wouldn’t be waged alone,

Neither of these things are the issue with the war. And “illegal” war is an oxymoron. If you mean domestivally, then it is far from unique, if you mean internationally then it is a useless moniker.

With no regard for human life anywhere

What is your basis for this assumption? The democrats designated all male afghanis over the age of 14 “combat-ready males”. Obama dropped more drone strikes than Bush. Biden loved genocide, and Kamala wouldn’t change a thing. The only difference is the majority of popular media pays less attention when Democrats do it, because they use nicer words.

on-again-off-again, which I argue would be less harmful for everybody.

The war would be less “harmful” if it was “legal”? If it was done with support from other imperialists? If we got all the bombing over with at once? IT IS A WAR. THE POINT IS TO CAUSE HARM.
Apart from that, more people causing harm or causing harm with more perceived legitimacy does not make the harm less harmful.
Not to mention this statement is akin to that dimwitted guy who thought he had WWII figured out
The reason the war is “off again, on again” is because Iran is an actual country with actual military capabilities that allows them to absolutely demolish US equipment in the area, and exert pressure upon the US. Iran makes reasonable demands, but they are unreasonable in the eyes of the propagandised American masses, so the political establishment cannot accept them. This would still be the situation under a democratic president.
You’d just be foaming at the mouth due to some rainbow imperialist propaganda instead.
Even if the democrats would be capable of leading a successful war, then that would not be “less harmful” it would, in fact, be worse - because the US is a fascist genocidal imperialist state. A victory would further empower the US, further entrench the establishment and leave Iran like every other nation the US has benevolently invaded - With millions dead, warlords roaming around, bored US rapist murderers guarding poppyfields, fucked infrastructure and growing right-wing radical militants. This would be the outcome of your utopian idealist view of the war if it were waged “less harmfully”.

In the large majority of potential outcomes, most of them NOT engaging in needless wars

In the majority of potential outcomes the following things are still the same for Harris:

• Fervent supporter of Israel
• Critiqued the pull-out of Afghanistan
• Views Iran as a geopolitical rival, she even stated Iran is the number one US enemy
• Such a xenophobe she ran on deporting more people than Trump
• Fervent supporter of US militarism, supporting past invasions and intrusions
• Fervent supporter of the US military, which she wanted to be “the most lethal”

So, given Harris’ political platform, her political history, the history of her party, the interests of her major donors and supporters, her view of geopolitics and her support for Israel (who were the ones to push Trump to war with Iran ) we have every reason to assume, in the vast majority of “potential outcomes” the situation would be practically the same.

but you are most welcome to disagree.

Don’t make this out to be some silly little “oh its just my opinion”.
An opinion is something you have about an actual concept, it is not the concept itself. “War is bad” is an opinion. “Grass does not exist” is not an opinion. You can have an opinion on the conclusions of the analysis of what is going on and how things might have been differently, but if your opinion is that the analysis itself is incorrect, then you need to present why said analysis is incorrect. Just spouting “well I think something else” is completely useless.

Removed by mod

left wing space get “antitankie”.

basically, the left wing of fascism, as usual.