Now do one about USAID.

Both parties my ass.

Prepare yourselves, "centrists" trying to target apathy will be chiming this both sides crap straight up until midterms.

It worked with Kamala.

Don't let it work again.

Giving more importance to a foreign state and their genocide instead of her voters is what happened to Kamala. The fact that they are actually trying to push her through again is insane.

Kamala was quite literally the same as Trump, from Palestine to the Iran war. The "problem" with Trump is that he is incompetent(which is good) and for you, the worst you people hate about Trump is he does not pretend to have a mask on like the Democrats are doing, and even then they themselves are barely keeping the mask on anymore.

Now do one about USAID.

USA destabilizes a nation through bombing them or funding reactionary rebels and then comes in as the oh-so graceful white saviour of USAID to help the "uncivilized savages" who can not run their own country for some reason

Always w the projection lol

One could possibly imagine turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering coupled with nice sounding words of sympathy, but there's virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran. Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi's bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn't have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.

USAID wasn’t what you think it was. It was CIA front, and Trump didn’t shut it down so much as move its operations to Marco Rubio’s State Department.

but there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DxQTPOouU

she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric,

Trump is just treating the US' allies as they always has been; vassal states. He's mask off and the vassal states can not do anything about it for that reason. It's why Denmark won't do anything but bark for their master when it comes to Greenland as an example.

Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.

That's a point against. I don't want the war to be done competently. I would rather we get our asses kicked so badly that the administration gives up, and even talking about fucking with them again becomes politically toxic. We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan, and then we were there for 20 years and accomplished nothing but blood and death. If Europe had reacted like they're doing with Iran, how many lives might have been saved by the war being cut short? Since the war is unjustified, surely it's better that we lose. Or are you saying, "My country, right or wrong?"

Granted, I don't fully agree with the other person's position. I think that Trump is doing more damage than Harris would have, I just don't believe that you should automatically support the "lesser evil." And I don't know really know how unlikely it really is that she'd stay out of Iran with her rhetoric about "the most lethal military in the world," her campaigning with Cheyney, and with Biden increasing the military budget to an all time high. I'm not aware of anything she ever actually said that indicated that she was inclined to a peaceful foreign policy.

"don't let it work again!" You say, while doing the exact same thing that failed last time

I can respect your position on that screwing up a war hard to create a deterrent and disincentive, it's an interesting one. To me that (and arguments that he's done more to reduce oil consumption than any environmental activist) are silver linings than reasons to direct your vote on the future one way or another.

We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan

As a Canadian, "my country" got involved there but we got burnt pretty bad I'd say, whatever the result was.

I'd rather see no war, despite Harris labelling Iran as the greatest adversary, I still don't think it's forgone conclusion that Harris would start a war, but I'll assume she does for the sake of steelmanning your argument. I'm not a time traveler so I can only speculate the alternatives, but Trump instigated war not just once but twice with Iran. He's giving American money away to dictators and allowing right wing propaganda campaigns to foment. He's done nothing to help suffering Iranians, 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. It's even hard for me to speculate how long a Harris-initiated war would be, but there would definitely be a stronger push to come to a nuclear deal quicker rather than this on-off style untrustworthy negotiation with Trump, and unlike him Harris would care about any unsanctioned action getting approval from Congress, which if it is (R)-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.

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, but I'll entertain a nuanced argument that one supports a thing Trump did, intentional or not, over a at least somewhat hypothetical action Harris might take.

"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

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.

I absolutely see where you're coming from. Sorry if I made bad assumptions about your opinion because I'm responding to you and the original comment, and in a sense I agree on your assessment but differ on the approach.

The physical crises are coming whether we shut our eyes or not, you are correct. I am maybe a lot more optimistic than many here on how pliable that system could be. My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes. Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we'd be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens, and form some strategic alliances with the establishment to get there.

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

“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

Thank you for listening to my perspective.

I don't think it's strategic to ally with someone who won't agree to a certain bare minimum of what's necessary. Let me use an example.

The US spends nearly a trillion dollars on the military every year, more than the next nine countries combined. Putting aside the humanitarian and ecological reasons I oppose that, the US is also now nearly $40 trillion in debt. It spends even more on interest payments than on this globe-dominating force. That debt is mostly because of those military adventures, and because the government cut taxes on the rich while it was doing them. I wouldn't call myself a deficit hawk, but it's hard to imagine that this situation is at all sustainable.

What needs to happen is a drastic reduction in military spending. If we cut it in half, we'd still be easily outspending any plausible threat, and at least part of that could go to actually helping people instead of hurting them. That still wouldn't fully solve the issue, and I would prefer to go further, but it would be a reasonable compromise, bending to what will be necessary before we're forced to. If a Democrat ran on that, then I can certainly see how it could be a strategic alliance.

But to maintain it where it's at would be totally unacceptable as a compromise. It's a problem that needs to be addressed, and if Democrats only maintain it while Republicans increase it, then the problem is just going to get worse and worse.

But they don't even offer to merely maintain it! They actively increase it. They are not merely failing to address the problem, they literally are the problem! They are actively making things worse!

Now, are they the lesser evil on this issue, compared to Trump? Sure. Trump said he wanted to increase the military budget to the unbelievable $1.5 trillion. The rate that one party wants to dive headfirst into this debt crisis is faster than the rate the other one does, but on the dive itself, there is complete bipartisan consensus.

When the other shoe drops, when we're faced with massive inflation and a debt crisis, then all bets are off about what parts of the budget are "untouchable." And if the military isn't cut, then it may well be social security.

The Democrats are giving us a hard no right now, hitting record highs and talking about "the most lethal military in the world." When I say that foreign threats are overblown and that we need to reduce military spending, the damn liberals even accuse me of just trying to weaken the country and of being a secret agent hired by Putin or Xi. Because militarism is a political rule right now. The minimum that needs to happen is politically impossible.

But there are weeks when decades happen, when those rules can be shaken up. And those weeks will come, because that is what it means to be unsustainable. Since it is impossible to achieve what is minimally necessary now, all we can do is prepare for the moment when the conditions change. And part of that preparation includes distancing ourselves from the sources of the problem, so that we cannot be credibly blamed or associated with it, and another part involves identifying and criticizing the sources so that people can point fingers in the correct direction. If we're standing next to them, covered in shit too, nobody's gonna listen if we try to say, "Called it!"

And if we don't, or aren't able to do that? Then when that time comes, it will be the right that's offering explainations, which will be total bullshit, but if those are the only explanations anyone's hearing, then it won't matter that they're bullshit. Then, they will be the ones able to influence which political rules get broken. That is the absolute worst-case scenario. But if you can agree that what the Democrats offer is less than what is minimally necessary to avert disaster, and you think the left should join them regardless, then, logically, you are making that an ineviability.

You're just handing out ammo for free.
Clueless lib

Poor Copmala, such a great domestic track record and definitely not from the both sides of genocide enablers.
It's good that you warn people about us.
They should really check for themselves what this great woman has achieved.

https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/socialism_faq.md#kamala-harris

And that's before the unconditional genocide stuff.
Oh and this banger:

It's all a Trump/Russian/Chinese/NK/commie but also fascist psyop to divide our peaceful country and our 2 beautiful parties that love eachother!

Don't also forget when she was bragging about recieving support from Bushist clique that killed millions

One is still objectively better than the other.

For white people yeah

At best you can say they're less openly scummy, doing slightly less damage (only domestically of course) while enabling the other side of their tag team to do the dirty work.
The word 'better' has no place here. Objectively.

I see one lacking in civility and one lacking in honesty, so I can't see how one is "objectively better". Some people favor civility over honesty, and others the other way around.

You wouldn't need USAID if your terrorist state is not selling weapons to all groups in civil wars and all the countries you destroyed with your illegal wars and foreign intervention under both dems and republicans. Seeing the dem history they never fix what the republican break

Israel would have gone alone but with additional billions dollars from the USA and naturally Iran will blame the usa too leading to the same result. I can't wait for dems to win to see how they will not stop the war. It is a shame that allies did not left you before Trump because you are the worst terrorist empire since the end of the british empire

Fuck you . The usa never cared about a single oppressed person .

It can only be changed by liberals waking up

Kinda like USAID did for terrorists

No, it just says you need to stay awake the other 729 days of the biannual cycle. You obviously don't want to do that, so you pretend it says something it doesn't.

there's more than 2 parties you can vote for and the meme shows why the 2 dominant parties are no different where it matters.

the funny part is i'm not even sure which one this is meant to be referring to lmao. both just cater to different whites and oppress everyone else

Which is still far more chance of changing things than you get by voting more power to the people actively opposed to changing anything that benefits their donors.

That would be because you don't want to.

You want to vote for "the good guys" and go back to brunch.

you should not expect anything to change by voting and history proves that substantial & enduring changes can only comes from us.

still you should vote, even if it's for your dog, but there are better uses for it. the epstein class assumes that you will vote for one of their approved parties, so cooperating in this system the way they want you to only serves to help validate it at best.

Except the second guy upgraded it to a foreign and domestic child crusher

the assumption that you're ceding your choice or that your choice is going to make a difference is were reality gets disconnected.

the fact of the matter is, we've been voting this way for most of a century now and it has already lead us to the same places that your understanding of accelerationism would lead us to anyways -- climate change that's guaranteed to fuck up human civilization; a panopticon powered by AI, financed by genociders, and will keep feeding off your body for the rest of your life like you're in the matrix; and a ruling epstein class that's so privileged it can literally publicly flaunt it's depraved desires to fuck/kill children with zero repercussions.

the meme is pointing out the willful ignorance induced blindspot that liberal smugness makes impossible to address -- the same willful ignorance that makes this meme feel like it's doing nothing more chastising.

and these conversations are necessary since history has already proven that we keep doing the same thing over and over again and we keep getting the same results -- yet americans chose to ignore history and have fooled themselves into believing that we can continue to keep doing the same thing anyways.

You're fine with either as long as no one has the option to vote against crushing orphans.