If someone came up to me and said they were going to shoot one cat or two and if I didn’t choose one they would shoot three I still wouldn’t play their game. Don’t negotiate with terrorists or whatever.
How dare you point out that polite people are crushing children? You must think I shouldn’t vote for anyone! It’s very important to never improve things, foreign children be damned!
Not that it really matters, because I’m not a liberal, I’m a leftist, but I (and more importantly, my liberal friends) have no problem criticizing democrats for supporting Israel. So go ahead and point that out all you want. I’ll 100% agree with you that they are just as bad as republicans on that issue. The problem I have is when someone reduces the parties down to their stances on one single issue. (In case that wasn’t incredibly obvious from my first comment.)
The meme heavily implies that the only difference is that one is polite and one is rude, which is not the only difference.
They both operate the exact same Palestinian child crushing machine, but one also operates a number of additional child crushing machines. People didn’t support the lesser evil because they’re more polite, they do it to keep those additional child crushing machines from operating.
You think Palestine is the only Bi-partisan machine? You really need to open a history book. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and all the rest are all bi-partisan.
Eh, the degree varies greatly. And ultimately, bi-partisan machines are irrelevant to the choice. Look at the partisan ones. Which side is operating more partisan machines?
I understand why people do it but what I don’t understand is why they are content to continue supporting any child crushing and discourage people from discussing it.
Discussing it is fine, I think people only get touchy about it right before an election because they don’t want other people to lose sight of the utility of voting lesser evil. I think the ones who actually think about it don’t support any child crushing, they just recognize that the election has a binary outcome, and they’d rather fight the lesser evil than the greater one.
At the end of the day, voting in bourgeoisie elections is just choosing the enemy you’ll be fighting, and choosing the lesser child crushing gives you a fight you’re more likely to win.
When else can people put pressure on the lesser evil to “tone down” the evil? Or take the opportunity to ensure folks know about the evil? Isn’t it when things look their worst they say “well actually we need to be slightly more evil to get those swing voters”?
Maybe I don’t understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to. How is there no shift to less evil under these conditions? So many individual elections for individual people and a whole lot of wack people getting elected.
and they’d rather fight the lesser evil than the greater one.
I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?
Maybe I don’t understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to.
While the platforms are technically individual, they aren’t really. They have to get approval from their bosses (donors) on what they get to run on. And the few actual good things that they run on has to be just empty rhetoric. If they get elected, they are expected to immediately forget those things.
when do they fight the lesser evil?
Thats the neat part, they don’t. The cycle goes like this:
It’s election season. You can’t point out that the child-killers want to kill children, or the evil people will win.
Election season is over. The child-killers are in power, but their hands are tied because of the evil people who aren’t in power. Its unrealistic to expect the child-killers to just stop helping the evil people kill children.
It’s election season. You can’t point out that the child-killers have been killing children, or the evil people will win.
Election season is over. The child-killers aren’t in power. What do you expect them to do? They have to keep helping the evil people kill children.
Maybe I don’t understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to.
Sincerely don’t mean to be rude, but the first 7 words provide the answer. Even when there are no official overall party platforms, the eyebrows waggle in a certain direction. Especially where campaign funding is concerned.
I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?
I do my part. Many others do too. The fighters are in the minority, which is why it’s so important that the bystanders at least make our work easier.
If you are saying this unironically you need to open a history book and look outside your bubble. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Haiti, former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Gaza, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Somalia and many many more attacked and or destroyed under democrats.
Compared to Democrats? How? Libya, Syria and Yemen were attacked under a Democratic president. In fact, Kamala said that Iran is the greatest threat in the world.
Turns out, outside of Amerika; there is in fact not a single fucking difference between these 2 parties. All you care about is domestic affair concerning your treats. You don’t give a fuck about people outside your area.
Turns out, outside of Amerika; there is in fact not a single fucking difference between these 2 parties. All you care about is domestic affair concerning your treats. You don’t give a fuck about people outside your area.
🫰🫰🫰(That’s snapping btw lol)
Like I don’t even expect people to overthrow the government tomorrow or whatever. Shit’s scary, I get it. But like, it would be super cool if they could stop aggressively defending the child crushing in front of the world, on the internet. As a start.
Biden supported Israel on day one of the war with everything he could even bypassing congress so yes, also its the Israeli–Palestinian war btw you dont call the other the Donbass war now do you?
Choose one:
Both sidesists:
If someone came up to me and said they were going to shoot one cat or two and if I didn’t choose one they would shoot three I still wouldn’t play their game. Don’t negotiate with terrorists or whatever.
I think it would be more realistic like this.
Choose one:
Democrat voters:
Choose one:
Libs:
Not that it really matters, because I’m not a liberal, I’m a leftist, but I (and more importantly, my liberal friends) have no problem criticizing democrats for supporting Israel. So go ahead and point that out all you want. I’ll 100% agree with you that they are just as bad as republicans on that issue. The problem I have is when someone reduces the parties down to their stances on one single issue. (In case that wasn’t incredibly obvious from my first comment.)
The “foreign child crusher” in this comic is doing a lot of heavy lifting, for a lot other problems.
The meme didn’t say they were the same, they said they both crush children. People gotta come with a list before it’s okay? Not great for memes.
(It’s not just Palestinian children either btw)
They’re literally drawn as the same person with different colors.
They are also drawn with speech bubbles demonstrating their differences.
The meme heavily implies that the only difference is that one is polite and one is rude, which is not the only difference.
They both operate the exact same Palestinian child crushing machine, but one also operates a number of additional child crushing machines. People didn’t support the lesser evil because they’re more polite, they do it to keep those additional child crushing machines from operating.
You think Palestine is the only Bi-partisan machine? You really need to open a history book. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and all the rest are all bi-partisan.
Eh, the degree varies greatly. And ultimately, bi-partisan machines are irrelevant to the choice. Look at the partisan ones. Which side is operating more partisan machines?
The difference in both parties is of 100% hitler and 99.5% hitler. Not much
I understand why people do it but what I don’t understand is why they are content to continue supporting any child crushing and discourage people from discussing it.
Discussing it is fine, I think people only get touchy about it right before an election because they don’t want other people to lose sight of the utility of voting lesser evil. I think the ones who actually think about it don’t support any child crushing, they just recognize that the election has a binary outcome, and they’d rather fight the lesser evil than the greater one.
At the end of the day, voting in bourgeoisie elections is just choosing the enemy you’ll be fighting, and choosing the lesser child crushing gives you a fight you’re more likely to win.
When else can people put pressure on the lesser evil to “tone down” the evil? Or take the opportunity to ensure folks know about the evil? Isn’t it when things look their worst they say “well actually we need to be slightly more evil to get those swing voters”?
Maybe I don’t understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to. How is there no shift to less evil under these conditions? So many individual elections for individual people and a whole lot of wack people getting elected.
I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?
While the platforms are technically individual, they aren’t really. They have to get approval from their bosses (donors) on what they get to run on. And the few actual good things that they run on has to be just empty rhetoric. If they get elected, they are expected to immediately forget those things.
Thats the neat part, they don’t. The cycle goes like this:
Rinse, repeat
Sincerely don’t mean to be rude, but the first 7 words provide the answer. Even when there are no official overall party platforms, the eyebrows waggle in a certain direction. Especially where campaign funding is concerned.
I do my part. Many others do too. The fighters are in the minority, which is why it’s so important that the bystanders at least make our work easier.
hmm, those both choices you laid out; how do the people outside your country get affected by these elections?
Generally, much worse under republicans. Republicans like to start wars.
If you are saying this unironically you need to open a history book and look outside your bubble. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Haiti, former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Gaza, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Somalia and many many more attacked and or destroyed under democrats.
Compared to Democrats? How? Libya, Syria and Yemen were attacked under a Democratic president. In fact, Kamala said that Iran is the greatest threat in the world.
Or better yet, the escalation of the genocide under Joe Biden? The genocidal monster who loves “Israel” so much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM
Turns out, outside of Amerika; there is in fact not a single fucking difference between these 2 parties. All you care about is domestic affair concerning your treats. You don’t give a fuck about people outside your area.
🫰🫰🫰(That’s snapping btw lol)
Like I don’t even expect people to overthrow the government tomorrow or whatever. Shit’s scary, I get it. But like, it would be super cool if they could stop aggressively defending the child crushing in front of the world, on the internet. As a start.
In my entire lifetime, only republicans have started wars, and only democrats have ended them. I’m almost 40.
And Donald Trump started a war with them.
The US has not formally declared war since WW2, so formal declaration cannot be your threshold.
Wikipedia has got a list of “wars” in the 21st century that the US has participated in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
Every president during this period makes the list.
Are you implying that Joe Biden started the Ukraine War and the Gaza War?
Biden supported Israel on day one of the war with everything he could even bypassing congress so yes, also its the Israeli–Palestinian war btw you dont call the other the Donbass war now do you?
I’m trying to understand what starting a war means such that you can say it was only the republicans.
There are other conflicts in there that are listed with dem presidents.
Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Bosnia and various drone campaigns. There are probably others in the last 40 years.
-Libya
-Niger
-Syria
-Yemen
All places intervened in by a democrat in recent memory, both parties are extremely militaristic.
am from outside the us.
nope. no worse than democrats.