this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
217 points (72.2% liked)
Memes
57128 readers
605 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Youre right. The person who's a fervent supporter of Israel, genocide, who said "Iran is the biggest threat to the US" AND "we will have the most lethal military in the world" could never conceivably start a war with Iran.
Definitely. Looking at her history we can safely conclude she would remain sceptical of Israel and not just do whatever they wanted her to do.
IF IT WERE OPPOSITE DAY!!! *GOTTEMYes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn't been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty.
You're taking the part where I'm being charitable and accepting the other person's (and your) premise that a war under Harris is inevitable for the sake of argument, and twisting that into as if I was arguing for it, which is incorrect. I will engage no further with you on this.
No, I'm taking your argument: "If a war were to be waged with Iran, you would prefer it would be waged by Kamala, because then it would be done competently" and pointing out your main issue with the war in Iran is how it is waged. The rest of your argument is: "I don't think Kamala would go to war with Iran." So, while you make allusions, the only actual objection you place to the war is that it is waged incompetently.
You know, how I first took one part of your comment, and then the other, until I had addressed the whole. You should try it.
I am then making an assumption, which is unfalsifiable, that if a war were waged with Iran under democratic leadership, you would not find it disagreeable, because you would buy into the propaganda that would be used to make you accept it.
Probably something about the inflated number of dead protesters. Or some pinkwashing.
edit: How about you adress the rest of the comment?
"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
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.
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.
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.
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
This is particularly irksome, and I'm beginning to wonder if they are genuinely not paying attention, or outright gaslighting? I know with pug-nacious, flying-off-the-handle squid, flip-the-bottomless-bucket, and agent 002, it's outright gaslighting.
Satans maggoty propaganda, godric, the list is quite long.
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.
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.
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.
Not to mention the democratic party was infuriated at Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan and immediately began agitising for a return.
Another example would be the starving of Venezuela or Cuba. Another argument would be the colour revolutions fomented - particularly under Obamas "Arab Spring"
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.
And you believe the democratic party to be the vector for this change? Even "naive" is too kind a descriptor.
Voting for democrats is akin to reinforcing the system, thus making it harder to "bend"
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.
Fuck you . The usa never cared about a single oppressed person .
Lmfao, what a load of horse shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DxQTPOouU
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.
“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
Yes. That is a good thing. The USA is a genocidal imperialist fascist oligarchy. Making it a less effective agent of capitalism is a positive.
Thank you. Normally when people are engaged in an argument and they present the expected counterargument, they usually have some refutation of it. Especially if they present it with the framing "you may say..."
Neither of these things are the issue with the war. And "illegal" war is an oxymoron. If you mean domestivally, then it is far from unique, if you mean internationally then it is a useless moniker.
What is your basis for this assumption? The democrats designated all male afghanis over the age of 14 "combat-ready males". Obama dropped more drone strikes than Bush. Biden loved genocide, and Kamala wouldn't change a thing. The only difference is the majority of popular media pays less attention when Democrats do it, because they use nicer words.
The war would be less "harmful" if it was "legal"? If it was done with support from other imperialists? If we got all the bombing over with at once? IT IS A WAR. THE POINT IS TO CAUSE HARM.
Apart from that, more people causing harm or causing harm with more perceived legitimacy does not make the harm less harmful.
Not to mention this statement is akin to that dimwitted guy who thought he had WWII figured out
The reason the war is "off again, on again" is because Iran is an actual country with actual military capabilities that allows them to absolutely demolish US equipment in the area, and exert pressure upon the US. Iran makes reasonable demands, but they are unreasonable in the eyes of the propagandised American masses, so the political establishment cannot accept them. This would still be the situation under a democratic president.
You'd just be foaming at the mouth due to some rainbow imperialist propaganda instead.
Even if the democrats would be capable of leading a successful war, then that would not be "less harmful" it would, in fact, be worse - because the US is a fascist genocidal imperialist state. A victory would further empower the US, further entrench the establishment and leave Iran like every other nation the US has benevolently invaded - With millions dead, warlords roaming around, bored US rapist murderers guarding poppyfields, fucked infrastructure and growing right-wing radical militants. This would be the outcome of your utopian idealist view of the war if it were waged "less harmfully".
In the majority of potential outcomes the following things are still the same for Harris:
So, given Harris' political platform, her political history, the history of her party, the interests of her major donors and supporters, her view of geopolitics and her support for Israel (who were the ones to push Trump to war with Iran ) we have every reason to assume, in the vast majority of "potential outcomes" the situation would be practically the same.
Don't make this out to be some silly little "oh its just my opinion".
An opinion is something you have about an actual concept, it is not the concept itself. "War is bad" is an opinion. "Grass does not exist" is not an opinion. You can have an opinion on the conclusions of the analysis of what is going on and how things might have been differently, but if your opinion is that the analysis itself is incorrect, then you need to present why said analysis is incorrect. Just spouting "well I think something else" is completely useless.
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