I was a Bernie-or-Bust-er in 2016 because I was confident Hilary was going to win with or without my vote. I deeply regret taking that stance and feel like I let down every woman who’s lost rights to their bodily autonomy, every family who was separated at the border, everybody whose life was lost or ruined due to the Trump administration’s incompetent response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and everybody else who has been harmed by the Trump administration.
Don’t be like me. It sucks having to vote for the lesser of two evils but that’s how our system works and not voting or voting third-party isn’t going to change that but it does run the risk of things getting a lot worse.
Unfortunately Gaza is a non issue. The situation would only be handled worse under the other candidate. Along with just about every other conceivable thing.
Not voting for a candidate is not the only, nor the most effective way to push a party to change positions on an issue you care about.
Protest voting doesn’t work when the candidate you are protesting is the least worst option. Democrats that will not vote out of principle have been conned as badly as MAGA republicans. End of story.
I think you might be on to something. Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting? I mean, it does deliver two right-of-centre parties to power, over and over again.
Where the wheels are coming off is that one of them - and some people say both - are moving further rightwards, and this is destabilising society in America.
Some people say… Dems are generally shit but they have definitely moved left over the last decade. A lot of new people have run and while it isn’t a sure thing by any stretch, people have been able to and have the chance to continue to move the party and also just straight up infiltrate it to push it left. Whereas the repubs have been in full sprint to the right.
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
It absolutely is set up that way. This may or may not have been the intent of our election system, but it is the outcome.
I think there may be some conflict in the interpretation of “set up”. When you say it was “absolutely” set up that way, keep in mind that many if not most would interpret “set up” to definitively include intent.
Washington himself warned of the dangers of a 2 party system…
Maybe the system is set up to limit the power of protest voting?
Not everything is some conspiracy to keep you down. The people who wrote the constitution just weren’t perfect and had to make political compromises, which resulted in an imperfect system.
Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.
The dynamic was understood, it just wasn’t formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren’t in use though, and probably wouldn’t even have been practical without automation.
Are you American?
Young people don’t get involved in the system and don’t vote, nothing special about the US on that level, so it’s not surprising their priorities aren’t the priorities of the political options.
If you want to engage those bad faith accounts, don’t respond to the Gaza thing; that’s a trap. Instead, ask about other issues like climate issues, housing issues, food insecurity problems, etc. ask them what their third party candidate has planned for that and ask for evidence of these plans. They’ll move goalposts and attempt to get back on Gaza. Keep them coming back to those other issues that affect Americans daily. Many of those accounts are here to derail conversation. Derail them in turn and force the conversation back on track.
Or do what I do and downvote then block, then post the occasional reminder that most of those accounts are bad faith at best.
I know. I mean I’m not a huge fan of Harris’ Gaza stance. Honestly I’m not sure why it’s political at all to call what Israel is doing wrong. But come on, Trump will be 100 times worse. And that’s just on the Israel/Gaza thing. I’m not sure how you can look at these two and decide that Harris is wrong enough about the Gaza thing that you come to the conclusion that either a third party or Trump vote is warranted. Which makes me believe is not genuine and likely foreign agent spreading chaos and misinformation.
It’s because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can’t afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
Not only that, but AIPAC is a serious force that has demonstrated their willingness to aggressively smear every candidate who speaks out against Israel; they’ve already done this for a number of races.
Harris is basically trapped here. The best thing she can do is stay vague until after the election, when she might actually have the power to do something about it. No one on Palestine’s side has anything to gain from her losing votes over it.
Yeah this is basically my thoughts as well. Stuck between Iraq and a hard place (I had to do the Hot Shots joke here… too fitting).
But seriously, AIPAC has way too much power in American politics. And your comment about Palestine is spot on. She is walking a very thin line, but this is the nature of politics and nuance. That orange fucker has no clue about any of this.
It’s because there is a large, internally-polled segment of the Pennsylvania electorate who are Jewish and sympathetic to Israel.
Harris can’t afford to not court them.
I have no doubt she vehemently dislikes Bibi and would wish to cut aid.
I hope you are right. But, without evidence (if there is any, please share it), this might be wishful thinking. You might just be a more moral person than Harris. I might be being extremely unfair, but it doesn’t seem impossible for an elected official to be willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in a country without American voters to gain power.
I think there have been some “leaked” info to reputable journalists how both Biden and Harris pretty much despise Bibi at this point. I think if you look at it in the aggregate in how they pushed for the ceasefire (as opposed to Trump speaking with Bibi to actively undermine it), in her comments after meeting with Bibi shortly after becoming the presumed nominee following Biden stepping down — there is a clear tonal change from, say, 6-months-ago even. So yeah, I think her hands are pretty well tied.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
And everyone conveniently forgets that Biden did try to stop aid to Israel earlier this year. Congress blocked it. Is he trying hard enough? No probably not (I don’t claim to be an expert in middle east geopolitics, it is possible that the situation is an even more thoroughly fucked Gordian knot than it appears), but he did try. And the alternative this November thinks what he is trying is “too tough” on Bibi.
Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.
I completely agree with that. I admit to being impatient for change now, because innocent people are dying now. It is sad that elections (and electorates) get in the way of such important moral principles.
Once you are under dictatorship, you can’t vote to hold anyone accountable. Vote for Trump and you won’t have a say in what happens to Gaza. Or anything else.
yea, but you get to brag to all the other inmates in the political prison yard that you stood up for your principles by not voting!
They’ll be in the same political prisons as their primary enemies, the classic liberal Dems.
LOL i can’t wait to get in fistfights with them
Fuck the fist fights, I’ll be playing human shield with their corpses while I sneak out in the cadaver wagon.
Oh Lemmy. Don’t ever change ❤️
I’m not as enthused as you to vote for a system where innocent civilians have to die for political convenience, sorry. My morals say that killing is wrong, and I don’t like it.
It doesn’t take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.
This isn’t about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I’m going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.
If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.
I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it
How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.
but I live in the reality of the viable options
Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve ‘innocent people are dying right now’. This bothers me.
If it’s the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say “The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse”. You’re saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?
Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.
Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.
Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It’s just a vote, you’re not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It’s really not that complicated.
If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.
There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it’s entirely appropriate to be angry that isn’t an option, but it isn’t the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn’t available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn’t been that black and white for a long time.
My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can’t radically accept the world and your life, it’s going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.
I’m voting so the state doesn’t kill my sister if she has complications in her pregnancy.
That is good. I would also like to be able to vote so the state doesn’t send weapons to enable one country to kill innocent people in another. Some of those people dying are sisters, and their siblings feel much like you might when they are without them.
but you are cool with killing the planet so fuck you.
“So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide.”
Thanks, as a person with a trans gender identity, this really helps me to understand that nothing will change, because fear and oppression will be utilised to force people to rationalise harmful actions as inevitable.
A trans gender identity? That sounds like a broken English interpretation.
It’s a fucky word construction, but it’s correct and in wide use. Transgender and trans are different concepts. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Hey, I’m autistic, queer, and an immigrant. You can hate me if you want, plenty of people do.
My gender identity is trans. I’m also ethnically Ukrainian. Feel free to assume I’m Russian because I’m different to you. That’s what human society does, create ougroups and scapegoat them. I try to avoid doing it, which makes me an enemy of those who do, because I say impossible things like “can we not kill innocent people?” For practical purposes, that will not happen, and asking for it is naive.
I know that. But, although impractical and naive, that does not stop it from being the morally correct outcome. My autism shows itself in a very strong sense of justice, and I find justice to be more important than practicality.
How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn’t magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don’t hate you either. I can’t say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn’t you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?
as a person with a trans gender identity
I’m gonna go ahead and stop you right there chief. Transgender people don’t write “transgender” as two words. Big “as a black man” energy here, cishet loser.
Our posting buddy’s fucky word construction is correct and in wide use. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:
•••
Preface
“Trans misogyny” refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.
•••
Also, if you’re still reading, please also add to your lexicon the absolute gift that is “cissie.”
As a non-binary person who is under the trans gender umbrella, without being transgender in the sense of having transitioned across genders, I am careful with my language. I am not transgender in the way people typically understand.
Feel free to participate in non-binary erasure, I’m used to it. Humans love creating outgroups so they can bully each other, that is why I find myself not labelling myself as human. I think gender is stupid, and I think humans are rude.
just STFU already
LOL you guys never fail to illustrate my point in less than 5 minutes
If your point is “some people think that killing is wrong”, feel free to consider your point proven.
i wish we were face to face. you’re pathetic.
His point is that some people think killing is so wrong that they’ll actively advocate for a course of action that will kill waaaaay more people.
You value your own moral purity over the lives of other people.
That’s his point.
It’s the trolley problem:
You have Gaza on one set of tracks
On the other, you have Gaza, Ukraine, and potentially a whole lot of other stuff including anyone that’s ever registered Democrat (they’ll be able to pry voter registrations and if they do make good on building big-ass detention facilities one doesn’t need to be all that creative to imagine what they might eventually use them for)
I don’t really wanna know what’s on that other set of tracks
You’re choosing between “lots of people being killed” vs “LOOOOOOTTTTTSSSS of people being killed”
Based on your own morality you have outlined, ethically you would choose to vote Kamala then, as under her far far fewer people will die.
Removed by mod
No demon at all has created it; other humans have. You aren’t the sole person responsible for responding to it, but your actions will contribute to what happens next, non-action included.
You can say that this kind of situation implies someone else has done something wrong, leaving you holding the bag, and you’d be right, if nobody had done something wrong, we wouldn’t have a genocide to talk about in the first place- but saying that leaving you holding the moral bag was a wrong thing to do doesn’t change the fact that you are now holding that bag, along with all the rest of us. And about half of us (referring to the people of the US as a whole), if you haven’t noticed, have every desire of causing even more harm. “Neither” is simply not an option when failing to choose the least bad thing will result in someone else choosing the worse one. It’s not fair, it’s repulsive even, but the universe does not work in such a way as to ensure only fair moral choices exist. Morality is a thing we invented, the world doesn’t care about conforming to it.
Getting the best outcome you have with the bad options presented you matters more than whether or not you feel your own personal hands are clean- because metaphorically clean hands will not save the people of Palestine, and likely would doom some, and others elsewhere, that could have been saved. A clean feeling conscience bought by leaving people you could have helped to die is little more than a delusion of innocence.
What do you think about China’s Uighur genocide?
There is no genocide that I agree with.
Not voting is a choice as well. A choice that will make it so that your voice will not have an impact on whether the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less. Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care about those whose lives are being threatened, the opposite of what you seem to think it is.
Honestly my ideology on it is the same as my parents and my grandparents, and even my great grandparents ideology.
I don’t care who you vote for, what you vote for, or your reasoning’s for doing do.
But if you refuse to vote, regardless of reason, you lose any say in complaining about what happens as a result, as you actively did nothing to help prevent it, meaning you have no right to bitch about the outcome.
A great Canadian philosopher once said “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!”
It’s really not hard to rush to the polls
Not voting is a choice as well.
Yes, but I don’t have any other choice, myself.
Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care
No, it’s an announcement that I care so much about innocent people dying that I am morally conflicted about being asked to be part of a political system which condones it.
asked to be part of a political system
But, you’re not being asked. You already are. You don’t get to pretend you’re not, just because you didn’t give your permission. This isn’t an opt-in situation.
And I get that maybe you feel that isn’t fair, and I agree it isn’t. Just like none of us asked to be born, none of us asked to be part of society either. But we are, and we have to deal with that now.
They don’t have a choice, because Samvega is not an American citizen. They are a troll and they only thing they do is say the same exact comments in every post. Don’t bother engaging with them.
Even a non American citizen has a choice in this. If they aren’t American, they can’t vote, but people that can vote can be influenced by the words of others (otherwise, such trolls wouldn’t exist, after all, they’d have no point), and someone outside the country can still choose what to say.
I’m not really convinced that foreign operations are terribly active on a platform this small, or that these people truly are such an operation, but if for the sake of argument they are, and the user in question happens to be one, I’m not sure that non-engagement actually helps. “Don’t feed the trolls” is standard advice for dealing with traditional trolls, that are just out to make people mad and will move on if ignored. But a person being paid to shape the narrative isn’t going to just get bored and quit, they’re going to keep doing what they’re paid to do, and people are at some level influenced to align with ideas that they think are popular among the people around them, so letting them make a bunch of uncontested arguments still lets them shape a narrative through volume.
On a platform like this, that doesn’t have engagement algorithms that will boost the words of someone you interact with, I feel that it makes more sense to drown out trolls of the foreign kind, so that others who see them get the impression that what they say is not popular. One just has to keep in mind, if one truly believes that one is arguing with such a person, that your goal in arguing is no longer either to refine your ideas or convince the other person of yours, but to convince other people who see the argument of them.
Not sure why you’re acting like you can vote on this in the first place
I’m acting like someone who is saying that they do not accept killing innocent people as a viable part of a political process that will make the human world better.
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?
I cannot cast a vote in this election.
So you want more death, got it. Abstaining from voting for the lesser evil is a choice, and you’ve made it. Blocked.
“In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” - Trump
Right so people should vote Green to hold Harris accountable while they still can.
Exactly! Because when she loses and Trump wins… Hey… Wait a second…
“Gaza is not the only issue” should not be the takeaway here:
“Even on this issue [Gaza], Donald Trump and his right-wing friends are worse,” Sanders said in the six-minute video, which he posted to X. He noted that Republicans have fought to block humanitarian aid to Gaza and that Trump — who has praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — has suggested Gaza would be a great site for beachfront development.
Here come the tankies to call Bernie Sanders BlueMAGA in 3…2…
Here come the
tankiesRussian trolls to call Bernie Sanders BlueMAGA in 3…2…Fixed that for you
I’m not sure why people haven’t been saying this more.
It’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position. The people of Gaza matter, and we can be pretty sure that Harris will continue current Biden Admin policies on it. You can’t argue for the hundred other policies at stake without knowingly allowing genocide to happen with US approval.
But here’s the thing: there are two very prominent Jewish people who don’t believe for a second that both sides are the same. One of them is Bernie Sanders. The other is Benjamin Netanyahu.
It’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position. The people of Gaza matter
Thank you for saying this.
If I were American, I would surely vote for Harris. But I would want to have been able to do more to keep people safe from state terrorism.
I have been. It tends to get downvoted by both extremes on Lemmy.
On my instance, the UI doesn’t even give a downvote option. There’s probably a way around that, though, not that I am interested.
Getting rid of downvotes is, I think, a good thing.
Getting rid of downvotes is, I think, a good thing
says the person who gets downvoted for all the asinine shit they say
I’ve been foolishly arguing with people for months on this topic.
We have been, everywhere we can.
Hey look, someone finally posted an article about this so the mods don’t remove it!
Here’s the link to the actual speech from Sanders: https://youtu.be/Vf5MThSniiY
I came to the Politics community 9 hours after it was posted to find discussion. Nothing.
Personally I feel an exception should be made when the news is literally just a video, why wait for a journalist to regurgitate it in written form?
Anyway
Gaza is not the only issue? Tell that to the main stream media.
Current Politics can be summarized into 3 things.
- Israel
- The Opponent
- The Election
Anything else doesn’t exist in their eyes. My grandfather had his Fubo running last night, I kid you not 10 minutes of ads, and every single one of them was based off one of those 3 categories. I asked him why he’s paying 95$ a month to watch smear campaigns and the same 3 topics over and over.
I’d really like to see someone who has the power to actually do something stand up to Israel and knock them down a peg or 2.
The information that I’ve seen about Israel’s attack on Iran over the weekend has some outrageous levels of discrepancy. Israel claims it crippled all of Iran’s air defenses and its ability to produce drones and missiles. Iran claims it intercepted the attack with limited damage (and a few confirmed fatalities). The truth is almost certainly between these 2 points with tons of propaganda and straight-up misinformation, but despite the “Iran Dome” bravado I’m not convinced that Iran’s defense was particularly successful.
I am no fan of Iran by any stretch and would prefer a more benign entity to step in and do something, but seeing them keep Israel in check would have been a welcome change. I guess my mindset is that you never really want one group to have too much power over others because being able to act with impunity opens the door for the worst types of behavior.
Holy hell, you liberals really have gone completely off the rocker in your corner of Lemmy, huh? I mean, Jesus Christ the shit I am reading in these comments is completely insane.
“Everyone I disagree with is a foreign agent”, say the people whose same views Israel are literally running bot farms about.
“Trump would be worse”, say the people who have admitted that the genocide of Palestine is an acceptable means to an end, as if queer folks are supposed to believe you won’t be their next tool of convenience to be discarded.
“Look at all these policy differences”, say the party who brag about being half Republicans and use their policies.
Y’all are going to lose, and it’s not going to be because of the 100 US leftists on Lemmy.
I’m sure you’ll blame us anyway though, because liberals have objectively abandoned reality.
Look at yourselves. You’ve become MAGA, and don’t even try to deny it. This is the shit you made fun of Republicans for doing for 4 years of Trump. I thought Democracy was about winning votes, not demanding them under threats of violence? Or is this another one of PugJesus’ cronies?
Counterpoint, you’re a Russian bot, you hate freedom, you hate democracy, and you hate America :3
Ok gaslighter
Yeah, the US elections have a high chance of losing, largely due to large disinformation campaigns not unlike the one your comment forms a part of.
Holy hell, you liberals really have gone completely off the rocker in your corner of Lemmy, huh? I mean, Jesus Christ the shit I am reading in these comments is completely insane.
Nice one komrad! These stupid Americans can’t fathom how far we can move the goalposts!
“Everyone I disagree with is a foreign agent”, say the people whose same views Israel are literally running bot farms about.
Da! DA! Sprinkle the truth in so they can’t use it against us! This is why you make the best borscht!
“Trump would be worse”, say the people who have admitted that the genocide of Palestine is an acceptable means to an end, as if queer folks are supposed to believe you won’t be their next tool of convenience to be discarded.
Putin will be proud of your efforts komrad, I’m sure of it. Not only did you defend komrad Trump, but you tossed in a genocide grenade! These dumb Americans can’t see through the web of lies you weave. It’s truely an art from you. You even managed to attack the homosexuals, god bless you!
Oh blyat! I did not realize this is a public channel!
Only comment that make sense here
hoohoooo, all the single-issue “progressives” and Bernie bros who have been screaming at me for saying the same thing have to scream at Bernie now.
that’ll be funny.
They screamed at Bernie when he endorsed Clinton after she got the DNC nomination in 2016. They called him “sell out” and such.
Bernie supporters also ended up being one of the most loyal voting blocks for Clinton.
A higher percentage of his voters backed Clinton than her voters backed Obama in 2008
From https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/
As a Bernie bro that voted for Clinton in 2016, there is this very small number of very voca Bernie supporters that screech the loudest and give everyone else a bad name.
goofy goofers
Stop pretending Harris also doesn’t have absolutely horrible immigration, environmental and police policies as well.
No politically viable candidate will have environmental policies sufficient to properly address climate change. We are so unbelievably behind the 8-ball on this.
*Record Scratch*
She doesn’t.
I mean she does she supports police funding, violence against refugees and half arsed environmental policies hell she is pro-fracking for example.
