BanMeFromPosting

Lmao talk about lack of nuance and then create this strawman

I continue to say he smiles like a chimp exerting dominance

Glad you finally understand.

Epstein was just as tight compadres with Bill Clinton.

"Both sides" its the same side dumbass.

Nuance my ass. Nuance in politics when mentioned by fool like you is akin to people screaming "let people enjoy things!" when someone dares say their Marvel slop sucks.
You rigidly support the democrats no matter what and you screech at any critique, no matter how correct. Yeah, seems real nuanced.

Nuance isn't just when you support genocide, but feel kinda bad about it. Nuance definitely isn't when you reduce the modern capitalist oligarchy into a binary, with no other options. Real nuance is a discussion of abstaining from voting vs. Voting third party.

Not wanting to commit genocide is a pretty moderate position, sure.

You have to vote for them because another guy would crush the child even more.

Kamala was DA and vice president, among a bunch of other stuff. Newsom is governor of California. What point is it you think youre making?
I can say with certainty more people would be hurt under newsom '28 than the current Trump regime, because Newsom would, at best, just keep this shit trucking, but people like you wouldnt care, since a democrat was in charge. Like how none of you gave a shit about Gaza or police violence or suppression of protesters or breaking strikes or [list continues] under Biden

There's plenty of high-ranking, influential, democrats that could be as influential as Kamala, why are you acting like Biden '20 and Kamala '24 was some fluke? And why are you singling out Netanyahu? Its not just these three people, its quite obviously the whole structure.

Its pretty affirming to see all the people bemoaning the loss of USAID, only to, at best, make a vague gesture towards "some accussations" of wrongdoing. Just constantly showing they asses.

Neat! Or whatever, I couldnt really give a fuck what you believe or your reaction is or whatever. I dont live in the fantasy-land you construct in order to avoid engaging with basic concepts, I live in the world where you dont vote "for or against policies" you vote for a party or a politician and that group or person uses the vote as a point of support for their policies. I think im going to end my interaction with this discussion here, because there's nothing to gain from it at this point, its pretty clear you just want to play make-pretend.

Do you people pretend to be dense on purpose or something? Why do you insist on spending so much energy on constructing a simulacra of what those that disagree with you believe, instead of just engaging with their beliefs?
The practical effects of voting for a warmonger is legitimising a warmonger. The practical effects of voting for someone else is legitimising someone else.