sweetpotato

I really hate you people for spewing your propaganda like that.

1. The "worse" part implies the democrats didn't give Israel everything it ever wanted which is in itself outright propaganda.

2. I don't know why Ukraine is portrayed like Palestine. Where are they getting ethnically cleansed that I missed? Where is this coming from? Show some respect to the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century for the love of god

3. At how many atrocious policies do you say enough? At how many rollbacks from republicans that the democrats do nothing about do you say enough? At how many genocides do you say enough? If the democrats committed a second one? Trump would commit more you say. A third one? Trump would commit more. A fourth? A fifth? At what point do you draw the line?

https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e

"If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.

The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong."

Someone should make a phase diagram as well. With temperatures on the Y axis and percentage of being gay or straight on the X axis. Like we do fora alloys

I genuinely don't understand how uranium can exist a priori in this argument but lead not? I might be missing something.

You don't spend millions on data analysts who gather voter data from social media, government data advertisers and other sources, you don't have photographers, videographers for every public appearance of yours, you don't have psychologists and communication specialists who decide what you'll say, do and express with your face. In general, you don't plan ahead every move you make when people will see you and you don't control your entire environment, the people you will interact with and what you will see and do every time.

You seem to have a really simplistic/naive view of how politics work at this level with the analogy of an ordinary person you gave. You need to realize that these people have absolutely nothing to do with you or me. These people will never tell you who they are funded by, who are lobbying them, who they owe to, who influences them, who threatens them and why they take most decisions, they will lie, they will hide their wealth, they will hide their ties. The only reason they are able to compete for presidency is the fact that the rich people support them, because their media take their side(channels, newspapers, websites) and their money fund their campaigns. So they will always, necessarily serve their interests, that's the deal, otherwise they will drop them and go to the next willing politician. This means that the big politicians can never tell the truth.

So with all that said, the fakeness of their campaign reflects the irreconcilable situation they are in, having to serve the 0.1% and having the people as a means to this end.

Everything they say, everything they do, every interaction with another person, every camera shot taken, everything is staged and planned ahead by teams. Their character is staged, their expressions are staged, so what's different? The fact that they may do something like that, though differently, once in a while? The goal is still the same, to connect with voters and to create a more likeable and relatable image of them. Regardless if other candidates have not explicitly dressed up as workers of a field they've never worked for. They film themselves going to factories listening to people, talking to people in the streets and all of that is 100% controlled, so I don't see the difference. It's not like anyone claims Trump works in McDonald's for years, they don't fabricate anything more than any other campaigner does.

The distinction you make doesn't have a tangible meaning to it, all of them are showing something staged based on data science, psychology and communication and nothing else.

You are right, I'm sorry for my aggressiveness. My point was that any big politician stages any public appearance and video they make, because they all have a very big team of communication experts who curate the best possible image for them. There is no authenticity ever and that's why so much money is spent on the campaigns. Staging a campaign is not a fascism issue, but a big politics issue

Jesus christ, can you people stop meatriding Harris for a millisecond? How do you make this about her?

Do you understand the meaning of the word staged? I was talking about the fact that any appearance of any (important) politician ever is controlled by a team of people specialized in communication. They want to obviously portray the politician in the best light possible, every impression counts. It's not a fascism thing, every politician constructs and curates their image to accomplish their goals and pass the messages they want to the people. Unless you think that these two rich politicians and the billions they get as campaign funding from other rich people are spent on pizza parties and that the videos and pictures they take are authentic lmfao

Staged? You mean that any other politician photo ever isn't staged?

What exactly did they say that made you draw this conclusion? I'm so curious

Ukrainian genocide? Where is this even coming from?

Regardless, your comment reveals the answer to your dilemma. If the question is how many genocides/oppressions you are willing to put up with, then it's a system worth abolishing. If one party commits 4 genocides and the other 5, then would you choose the one committing 4? There is necessarily a point where both parties are doing so badly, they're indistinguishable and they are both crossing the red lines, that applies for everyone of us, no exceptions. So the question then remains, where do you draw the line for this?

Another example I usually give for this is: one party being Hitler and the other being Hitler but he is giving a little bit more money to the healthcare system. Would you vote for Hitler? No, so you have to draw the line somewhere. We draw it at a genocide(and at numerous more issues which are for another discussion)

I know you'd wish that, but unfortunately genocide is too much for me and the least evil argument doesn't hold up anymore. There are red lines and dnc has absolutely crossed them. I'm not expecting you to understand, you clearly don't care enough about the genocide.

I wouldn't know since I am not a republican. I'm just absolutely not ok with the Palestinian genocide, but you care so little that you only seen republicans, regardless if the critique comes from the right or from the left. You'd wish you could make me look like a republican.