We literally can’t get one tho…
Harris has said she thinks Biden is handling Israel fine and she wouldn’t do anything different.
Biden is ignoring evidence Israel is using US weapons in war crimes which is in violation of the Leahy law.
So sure, we all need a US president who respects evidence, but we won’t get one for at least 4 years, and if Kamala wins I see no reason the DNC would let us have a primary.
Anyone still sprouting this line hasn’t listened to a single thing actual progressives and defenders of Palestine have said in recent weeks.
Harris’s position is bad but voting for anyone else is so much worse right now. Bernie Sanders is correct, as usual.
Removed by mod
Harris’s position is bad but voting for anyone else is so much worse right now
No one is saying anything different…
But someone can hold their nose while still admitting a candidates shortcomings and pushing for them to follow US law is a pretty low fucking bar.
The problem is if you tell people they’re holding their noses to vote, they might just decide they can’t be bothered getting out there on the day.
…which given there’s no clue what Trump has planned to sabotage the count, the numbers, and where - could happen anywhere.
There are no safe seats this election, there are no safe states, no red states, no blue states, every vote from a real person makes it harder to deny the outcome. So until it’s over: let’s all agree to encourage people to vote!
You’re not holding your nose, you’re making a stand for something you believe is vitaly important to your future.
You’re not holding your nose, you’re making a stand for something you believe is vitaly important to your future.
It can be both…
Stopping fascism would be easier if we didn’t need people to hold their nose, but reality is reality
Denying it won’t change it.
We need people to hold their noses. And saying that what we need is a bar that Kamala can’t clear is what you should be complaining about. But youre not mad at the headline…
The people we need to hold their noses, are already aware of what my first comment said.
If you want their vote, then you need to convince them in a way that works.
That doesn’t include lying and getting mad at people for stating facts. It’s stating that Kamala needs to be better and we (as a party) will keep pulling her left instead of just accepting her flaws and never asking for more.
I think the reason that this happened is due to structual issues in the way US Presidential elections work (e.g. the Electoral College), hence I’m hopeful that the 127 DC States plan - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review - will be in reach soon if Dems get all three Houses in this election, or at least after the 2026 midterms if Harris wins this year but Dems lose the Senate. Then we can fix all these issues via Constitutional amendment, and with fairer elections, more leftist candidates will have a better chance of winning the highest office.
Removed by mod
Evidence is to respected, except for where it upends personally preferred narratives. This can be, and often is, true for any human who has preferred narratives, I’m afraid.
Anyway, what you posted isn’t the kind of evidence that’s really the problem. The issue is one of morality and logic. Some people say “stop killing innocent people”, and others agree that killing innocent people is bad, but Americans must (at least temporarily) accept the killing of brown children in a far-off country in order to reduce harms in America, and for Americans to hold their nose as they vote.
This is not how morality works, though, and it is not how logic works, either. Logically, if harming the innocent is wrong, then it is wrong to do so even as a sacrifice for the greater good of those who you live amongst. Morally, I wouldn’t press a button to kill a stranger in another country to make my life better, and I wouldn’t judge someone else who did that positively. Instead, these ideas are practical. It is a practical concern to ignore morality and logic. But I’m not someone who elevates the practical above the moral certainty that hurting innocent people is wrong.Some people raise the beguiling spectre of the trolley problem, which is a shit thought experiment when used to explain real-world harm.
Source: medium
In 1976, Judith J. Thomson expanded the problem into the classic version that most of us know today.
Would you push a fat man off a bridge to stop a runaway trolley from killing 5 workers on the tracks?
This version is not just about switching tracks, but brings the moral issue much closer to home by saying if you want to save 5 people, you yourself have to push someone off a bridge.
To make matters worse, these are also the only two choices that you have. There is nothing else you can do; there is no escaping the problem.
[…]
Like many philosophy instructors, I have given this thought experiment to my students many times. In my philosophy classes, Students of all levels and ages are repulsed by the experiment. They think that it is stupid that there are only two choices and that there is nothing else they can do.
[…]
But something I have never seen given much consideration is the initial response that my students and so many others have to the problem.
[…]
Our intuition is that if we are in a lose-lose moral situation where the right moral action does not feel satisfactory, then someone else made a bad moral decision already; leaving us holding the bag.
sci fi timeline
You are Here----->
I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance
― Carl Sagan
Why was manufacturing shipped overseas? Profit. Why are technological powers in the hands of a few? Because those few were able to become more profitable than their competitors. Why does the state not prioritize public interest? Because those with the most influence direct the state to prioritize their profit above all other considerations. It’s profit. It’s all because of god damn profit.
