
post
Hmm, red makes it go faster so you kill more people faster but they don't suffer as long but blue gives you better team mates in matches... wait is this competitive trolley slaughter? I wasn't expecting to need a team I guess I'll choose blue because they will be carrying.

Well I voted for it to be green
We have three mainstream parties. Works with that too.
So much focus on the lever that nobody is trying to derail or cut power to the trolly
The supposed democracy advocates within the democratic party continue to refuse to fix the First-past-the-post voting system.
Dont worry, you can count on them to point out all the flaws of the voting system during the midterm while doing nothing to fix it before or afterwards.
Trump was inevitable under such conditions. If you capture one (or more) political parties in a two party system, clearly you can undo every single check and balance. Wake up blue MAGA, your continued use of the FPTP crutch is a national security threat and will cause the nation to crumble.
Was it worth it keeping those safe blue states? Was it worth the easy elections against the worst of us all?
America last, party over country at all costs.
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
Yeah democrats really care about the poor.
And they totally wouldn't increase the ICE budget, and deportations.
edit: By the way, you might want want to be a little less transparent with vote manipulation. I just banned 3 of your no-content alts.
She has her own list of atrocities to account for, but most importantly, she's pro-israel, and pro-genocide.




The KHIVE is here to correct the record on her prison slave labor scandals, defense of white supremacist cops, disproportionate jailing of black people, and staunch support for Israel.
The point isn't to defend her now, it's to point out that it would have been much better if she won over trump. It's to point out that If you didn't vote for her, you are at fault for Trump's win. It's to point out that unless enough people figure out that concept real soon, we will lose the ability to gain some control in the midterms and we will probably lose our democracy for the foreseeable future.
"Let me mention a few negligeable differences like crypto and ignore all the blatant similarities which actually matter"
Those are small differences to you? Wow.
Anyway, this infighting is exactly what the shit-ass gop wants. Nice.
You advocating that people should vote for the duopoly is exactly what the duopoly wants.
Notice I didn't say that either. Good reading skills, chump.
what the hell is this
You mean champ. Or chimp?
The Trump term has literally seen a truce to the genocide in Palestine. This isn't an endorsement of Trump, he's a fascist piece of shit, but to those constantly bickering about genocide being worse under Trump, where are you now?!
No one actually believes he ended the war
There is no war, there is an ongoing genocide of Palestinians by the settler colony of Israel.
And yes, the genocide very much didn't end unfortunately, and it won't end until Isntreal is driven out of the region. But it has been ameliorated. By all accounts, dem supporters constantly were ranting about how "not voting for Kamala worsens the genocide", and this is, factually, not what we're seeing.
Trump has purposefully made the genocide in Ukraine far worse
There isn't genocide in Ukraine, there is an inter-imperialist war going on in Ukraine. Using the label "genocide" to every conflict is very harmful to people like Palestinians who are actively being starved en-masse and kept out of reach of basic medicine, healthcare and even fucking drinking water.
There isn’t genocide in Ukraine
When Russia started relocating Ukrainian children into Russian families, that made it a coordinated effort to eliminate a people, which makes it a genocide.
You mean when they fulfilled their obligations under international law to move children away from active war zones?
Fucking monsters, they didn't even put a wall of them in front of their weapons like true humanitarians in Ukraine.
After 2 years of insisting, Ukraine provided list of 339 names of missing children of which 161 were found living with parents in Germany. The entire "kidnapped children" take is pure atrocity propaganda.
On the other side, in 2014-2022 Ukraine killed 15000 people in Donbas and forced millions more to migrate. THIS is considtent with UN definition of genocide.
Most of the claims of relocation of Ukrainian children to Russian families come from the government of Ukraine, not from independent investigative journalism. The Ukrainian government has obvious reasons to do this atrocity propaganda. The Russian government itself justified the start of the war on similar grounds, arguing that Russian ethnics in eastern Ukraine were being genocided by Ukraine through forced Ukrainization and the banning of Russian language. I don't take the Russian government seriously when it makes such claims because I haven't seen much independent journalism confirming it, I apply the same reasoning to the claim of Ukrainian children being kidnapped en-masse and forcibly Russified.
As far as I know, there are only a handful of independently confirmed cases of Ukrainian children being sent to adoptive families in Russia, and most children evacuated by the Russian military have been returned to their families in Ukraine. There aren't many cases of either because, as you may expect, in an attrition war in which the movements of the frontline are slow, there are very few children near the frontlines.
Some of the countries that have officially labeled Russia's brutal invasion as a genocide include [list of geopolitical enemies of Russia]
France can't even fucking recognize the state of Palestine until like a week ago, and now they're authorities in genocide? Fuck them.
As for your points list:
#1 goes mostly from claims by the Ukrainian government. It is true that Russia has extracted children from the warzone and it is true that in some cases these children have been sent to adoptive families in Russia, which I heavily condemn, but it's not a generalized thing and most confirmed extracted children have been returned eventually. The official numbers by the Ukrainian government aren't confirmed by any investigative journalism and the invaded Ukrainian state has obvious motivations to claim abduction of Ukrainian children and violations of human rights. The Russian government makes similar claims of forced de-Russification of ethnic Russians in Donbas to justify its invasion of Ukraine, which I hope you don't take seriously because it's obviously state propaganda.
#2 A statement doesn't make a genocide.
#3 Civilian deaths in the Ukrainian war, by any metric you want to use, are contained compared to any imperialist war carried out by the west. Civilian death ratio in the unlawful and horrifying invasion of Iraq was comparably much higher and it wasn't a genocide in my opinion (probably not in yours either). However horrifying the invasion of Ukraine is, it responds to patterns of war between nations, not of genocide attempts against a population.
#4 Isolated instances of war crimes don't imply a generalized intent to massacre civilians of a given ethnicity. War crimes are horrible and the perpetrators should be brought to justice, but again, the scale you bring of "hundreds" doesn't respond to genocidal goals. Massacres of civilians take place in many wars (see Vietnam, Libya...) and are war crimes, but not every war crime is genocide.
Please, do not dillute the meaning of the word "genocide". It's meant to carry an extremely heavy connotation of attempt of total extermination of an ethnicity and culture, and throwing it around lightly is an injury to people suffering from it.
With democrats at the (wheel?). Its the same trolley, the same track and the same people on it.
But they mostly abide by a legal speed limit and in general go much slower.
Sometimes they get to a full stopt and get out to clear some people manually to get back going.
The gop sees this and cries out that these slow speed limits are the problem. Go fast, get there quicker.
Neither party wants to talk seriously about where we’re going.
Neither wants to stop.
Shit none of them talk about where theyre at. The bleeding edge of late stage capitalism.
in general go much slower
Tell that to Palestinians, the truce has been implemented famously not during democrat rule.
The only reason there is a “truce” is cause the Trump regime causes so much chaos they think they can get away with a hypernormalized fake truce.
Also Trump does not care one bit about what happens in reality as long as he believes that people believe him to be successful. Towards BN he is nothing but a useful fool.
Most media channels are happy to stop reporting about this cause it was getting old but the war and famine are going on unchanged.
The only reason there is a “truce” is cause the Trump regime causes so much chaos they think they can get away with a hypernormalized fake truce
So an amelioration of genocide is insufficient to you? Good, it's insufficient to me too, that's why I suggest voting against democrats too
Can you explain you reasoning because It just sounds like you fell for hypernormalization big time.
Just to make things clear. The Genocide is still ongoing. Trump won last time and the biggest difference it made is a classic trick got deployed to manage public perception of what the media thinks is going on.
I repeat voting against democracts does not remove any of the issues, we are just more Frequently gaslighted against forming resistanc under Trump
The best strategy to move away from capitalism with the least bloodshed is to have people need to vote democrat during elections and then instantaneously organize mass protest against them after they win.
How are we more gaslighted against resistance with Trump? People are mobilizing in much higher numbers now, and they were quite literally shutting their ears during the Kamala campaign not to hear the names of genocide victims.
FIY
Part of why Trump won is because the majority of people loath the democrats for their blatant support of Israel. Even Bernie took a big popularity hit because of it. I am not sure where you get the perception that the people mobilising now were somehow ignorant of genocide before.
We are gaslighted against resistance because media is getting flooded with scandals and misinformation to be upset about, making it harder to unite because everyone has a different priority issue.
The no kings protest is getting people outside because many people are realising there is a major issue which deserves priority, getting the dictator out the peoples house.
You seem to confuse these people as belonging to the same groups as the weirdo democrat fans that show up to their events but its a feature by design of a two party system that the majority of voters dislike and loath the party they vote for.
Verifiably Reality is AIPAC funds both parties and both support muslim genocide, towards the Palestinian people there is no effective difference.
Also verifiable, the gop created a blueprint for turning the US in a literal fascist dictatorship, which they have been executing.
Is committing genocide not a fascist act?
Fascism provides a specific permission structure for genocide that isn't present in other systems. That's not to say genocide didn't happen before the term was coined, but that the characteristics of fascism; nationalism, racial supremacy, military supremacy, victim complex, out groups, scapegoating, disdain for human rights, etc.; tend to be present anywhere that genocide is present, and genocide doesn't just happen because some "genocidal regime" found its way into power.
Whether or not you need their permission to make the policy; you need the people's permission for it to stand, because ultimately you need the people's voluntary compliance in order to carry it out. Otherwise you undermine your own system and generally incite resistance against it.
They just do nothing to stop the fascists when they have power and do everything they can to compromise with them.
Great hero of the people: Neville Chamberlain
I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did.
Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit.
The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit?
And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party.
You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want.
The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself.
You keep saying that, but what does that even mean?
You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history.
Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments.
I don't refuse to understand anything.
lmfao...
You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them.
In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point.
Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct.
Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words.
In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say.
Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point.
I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time.
What's the actual difference? You end up at the same place with either one.
but all they really care about is money and influence.
Correct.
That is why they maintain American imperialism.
Such as funding a genocide in the middle east.
This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse.
"What's the difference if you end up at the same place?"
The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same.
politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism
the paradox of tolerance, ever heard of it?
The world cares about what they do to other nations, not to themselves. Crazy gun policies? Slave labour in prisons? Your problem. Military expansionism, cripling economic sanctions, political inference? Very much our problem. That did't change.
They aren't fascists, yet they're committing a genocide:

Democrats: against every genocide except the current one.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but ultimately they absolutely are fascist. If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale.
We can't keep accepting the lesser evil indefinitely. When you brush off the serious issues in the Democratic party with language like "no saints" you make it look like that's exactly what you intend for the country to do. I mean "politicians will be politicians". That's not convincing anymore.
If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian.
Just to clarify this to others:

There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale.
That part is important. I hear you about "the lesser evil" but if you're response to resisting a lesser evil results in a faster, accelerated evil then you have contributed to a much greater harm. If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power.
If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power.
Biden was in power when the genocide started and during most of it. He had the power to stop it and didn't. So there's your answer.
So the Genocide hasn't accelerated under Trump as OP claimed?
No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump.
Okay, don't vote for Biden then.
Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia.
Biden could have stopped it
Use better language then.
he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out
On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution.
"Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding."
That's the part where I'm sympathetic to your argument. I think anyone not voting for Harris made a mistake. I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure.
I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure.
The argument I made for people to vote for Harris was that this is exactly what will happen if Trump wins, and 3 months before an election is not the time to try to get a viable alternative. Harris sucked, her campaign was shit, but the alternative is running the predictable course.
Now is an excellent time to work on a viable alternative, but saying "both are the same" is disingenuous, and is not actually putting an alternative forward.
To put it differently, if they are the proximate cause of the Trump presidency, then you are the ultimate cause. I throw up my hands at trying to decide which matters more.

top 91 comments