All the dronies in this thread need a reminder of what their party is capable of:
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
83 points (75.2% liked)
Memes
51326 readers
601 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 38 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[removed by mod]
All Biden had to do was condemn Israel and quit arming them, and all she had to do was just say that
But just imagine how inconvenient that would be. Have you ever read the highly important liberal ideological tract "When You Give A Mouse A Cookie"? Winning is highly problematic for dems. They want to send donation emails and keep you in a constant spiral of dread forever.
Just want to confirm that for you, no genocide=expecting perfection. Not being genocidal is an unreasonable bar to clear in your eyes, is what you're saying
I think everyone's way overestimating how much influence the president has over an entirely separate sovereign nation, especially when it's in the throes of bloodlust. The genocide would have continued no matter who won the election. You should have been more concerned about your own country.
The only reason the genocide can continue is because the US sends billions of dollars worth of weapons to facilitate it, and blocked every UNSC resolution calling for a ceasefire. The US provides both political cover for Israel internationally, including actions such as sanctioning the ICC, as well as material aid necessary to carry out this atrocity. The US is actively involved in the genocide.
That's certainly true. I'm just not sure they'd be able to stop it without more direct intervention.
Israel is entirely reliant on the US material support to exist.
Don't mind me. I'm probably just being needlessly nihilistic, but it's kinda hard to not be these days. I just reckon that they'll still find a way even without the US. But it's a pointless argument anyway, because that'll never happen.
Reagan was able to do it by clicking his fingers. He wasn't exactly a dove.
If the US stopped sending weapons Israel would have to stop the genocide regardless of whether they want to or not. Already even with being pumped full of pentagon weapons and fundings all they can do is bombing unarmed civilians from far away because every time they try to actually fight Hamas or Hezbollah they get fucking shredded and have to retreat within a few months and their supposedly impenetrable iron dome gets regularly bullied by Hezbollah and Ansar Allah drones, so without US help they would be doomed to fall unless they sue for peace.
Israel is not an entirely separate sovereign nation from the USA. Neither is Jordan, Bahrain, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Hungary, France, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Canada, Argentina, India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Singapore. Did I miss anyone? I got tired so I know I missed someone.
Yeah, that's entirely different can of worms. One good thing that may come from the Trump shit-show is a reduction of US hegemony. It'll probably just get replaced by Chinese hegemony, though, so... yay?
American hegemony is better described as global dictatorship of international finance capital. The countries being called "rival superpowers" today are merely semi-peripheral industrial powers that are too developed to be bullied by the United States and its allies, despite their control over the banking system and formidable weaponry.
China and Russia are not pursuing mutualistic development with third world countries out of some kind of moral obligation. It is just more efficient than jockeying for control in the neocolonial system. You know who is trying that? Turkey and India. Watch, they'll get left behind to line Erdogan and Modi's pockets. Just relax gringo nobody is coming to take your [checks notes] koalas. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Perfect was never the line, the line was just "not genocidal" and if your preferred Nazis couldn't meet that standard it's their fault and yours for letting them think they could get away with it and still maybe win.
Let me contact a few Palestinians to tell them they expect far too much and they'll never be happy
Seriously think about who you're going to bat for. You're comparing different flavors of Hitler and defending one.
The democrats are a ruthless, genocidal party. Not wanting genocide is not "demanding perfection".
Why did Biden do this?
Or why did Obama do this?
- In 2016 alone, the US under Obama dropped 26,171 bombs in the Middle East and North Africa (3 bombs every hour), up 3000 from the previous year. The countries bombed include Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia. He authorized 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush. 1
Ha yes, wanting a politician that doesn't have sewer fermented dogshit stances on literally every single important current political issue is "expecting perfection".
Keep scolding everyone who dares have even the mildest criticism of the blue clown show as they continue to slide more and more to the right, that worked out so well for you all this past election.
Are you saying you're okay with voting for openly genocidal politicians? If so, what separates you from the people that voted for hitler?
"I don't think we should bomb children", "I think medial-debt shouldn't be the largest cause of bankruptcy in our country", "People should be able to oppose genocide", "cops shouldn't be able to assault innocent people without consequence"
"expect perfect"
I think your definition of "perfect" might be a little off, as I think those are all fairly reasonable to ask of a candidate.
Yes, Harris would have been better than Trump, but that is a pretty low bar. She spent her time trying to get as close to that bar as she thought she could get away with.
[deleted]
Look I'm not a Kamala apologist but if she was prez I don't think we'd have the national guard tear gassing protesters in LA right now. I mean the dems are terrible but come on now... The same as Trump?
In addition to siccing the military on protestors...
- Harris would totally apply tariffs to every country in the world.
- Harris would totally pardon everyone who paid her enough and said good things about her.
- Harris would fire huge chunks of the government recklessly without any regard to what they do.
- Harris would push for a Big Beautiful Bill to withhold funding from judges that would try to hold her administration in contempt.
- Harris would start a cryptocurrency token designed solely to enrich herself.
- Harris would get into rapid back and forth arguments on Twitter (or BlueSky I suppose) with other influential people.
- Harris would try to make every issue about herself, including Canada's election.
She would totally do all of these things in the first few months, because both sides are definitely the same.
Okay, so she wouldn't have done those things, does that invalidate the post's claim that she has nothing actually progressive to say about any of the topics mentioned? She's the epitome of status quo whose only redeeming quality is that she's not batshit insane like the other candidate. That doesn't make her a good candidate for the country. I'm not going to comment on whether y'all should have voted for her or not because I'm not American, but all I'm saying is I can understand why tons of people didn't want to vote for her because she not only failed to address any of the issues progressive voters had, she deliberately avoided talking about them.
Also, the election is over. Why do I get the impression you think the OP is still trying to get you to not vote for her or something when that ship has sailed? All of you went apeshit when anyone dared criticize her during the election because "a vote not for Harris is a vote for Trump," you're going to use that same reason when it literally doesn't fucking matter anymore?
[deleted]
No, if a Democrat president had done something remotely resembling one of these things: media, courts, Congress would be in a frenzy to stop it, before you could say executive order.
I mean I can understand the "controlled ineffectual opposition" narrative, but I don't buy the "Democrats' inaction means they are just as evil as Republicans".
Cool cool.... Hey why did Obama run a drone assassination program?
- From 2000 up to the present day, the US has been carrying out a campaign of drone strikes and asassinations in the Middle East and Africa, including Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths, including women, children, and US citizens. 1 Drone strikes are used by the military and the CIA to hunt down and kill people the Obama administration has deemed — through secretive processes, without indictment or trial — worthy of execution. Drone strike targets are usually pinpointed through cell phone usage. The Obama asassination complex is detailed in the drone papers.
There's no doubt that she wouldn't be as bad as Trump, but she was never meant to be president. Her role was to ensure Trump got reelected. That's what it looks like to me, at least.
if she was prez I don't think we'd have the national guard tear gassing protesters in LA right now
What are you smoking and can I get some?
They are saying because Kamala did not want mass ICE deportations that we wouldn't be having mass ICE deportations in LA.
Even if you believe Kamala and Trump share the beliefs/end goals/policies whatever, there is at least one distinction and that is she did not want mass ICE immigration. Therefore, she is LESS harmful.
They are saying because Kamala did not want mass ICE deportations that we wouldn't be having mass ICE deportations in LA.
Are they saying that somewhere else? Because I didn't see that anywhere in the text of either of the two comments in the chain.
More accurately though: Kamala does not brashly call for mass ICE deportations like Trump does because she needs to maintain an image of being an opposition. And the point of maintaining this veneer of being an opposition party is to provide a pressure valve. The goal is to manufacture consent, to pacify liberals who might otherwise figure out that the system does nothing for them and become leftists, to put a "woke" face on the evil agenda of capitalism so liberals can smugly claim to be the only people fighting for social justice and simultaneously block out any radical voices.
That doesn't mean she, and the Biden admin that she promised to be an extension of, wouldn't be having mass ICE deportations all over the country. It only means that liberals would be cool with it like they were with ICE deportations under the Biden and Obama administrations. Because liberals, by and large, like the violence. The ones who figure out that they don't become leftists.
Even if you believe Kamala and Trump share the beliefs/end goals/policies whatever, there is at least one distinction and that is she did not want mass ICE immigration. Therefore, she is LESS harmful.
Honestly, the only material difference between the two is what they say in public. It's only an indicator at best of the trajectory of the system.
Like imagine if your car is smoking in the front, and the mechanic is like "The transmission is fucked, the engine is on fire, the battery also exploded, and I'm not going to do anything about it", but then you take the car to another mechanic and they're like "The transmission is fucked, the engine is on fire, the battery also exploded, and I'm not going to do anything about it, but I'm willing to charge you $69 to turn off the Check Engine light." And hundreds of people in the internet are like "Bro you gotta fix the check engine light or your car will never work ever again bro please just go to the other mechanic and pay $69 and if you want to get a bike instead you secretly want your car to be on fire bro".
In a car, the Check Engine light is an indicator that something is wrong, just like in the US, the public rhetoric of the current administration is an indicator of the trajectory the system is on.
I'm not wasting my time to prop up liberal Democrat politicians who won't even pretend to attempt to change a goddamn thing. We know the system is working exactly as intended. It's oppressing the exact people it's supposed to oppress. And the Democrats aren't even pretending to care about the things they campaigned on stopping in the last election cycle. They're the baddies too, and I'm tired of pretending they're not.
I agree that the liberals love manufacturing consent, I agree that Kamala and the Biden administration would still be using ICE deportations like they were under Obama, and I mostly agree the democrats don't care about their voters and are bad people who want to maintain the status quo.
That being said I still think there is a material difference. Besides Trumps deportation and ICE policies, if literally every other policy decision between Kalama and Trump is the exact same I think there is still a material difference. The difference being Trump is using ICE more aggressively, capturing more people, and being more harmful. He has either stopped or severely limited the number of immigrants in the US. Trump is also using no badge and masked ICE to grab people off the streets. I do not believe Kamala would have done this and that is the material difference I see. Now if you wanted to argue that the small difference doesn't matter, or that having a passive system is worse because it keeps more liberals ignorant longer and perpetuates the system longer thats a different discussion. (Not trying to put arguments in your mouth I just think this would be a related, but different topic)