that is unfortunate, because otherwise a protest is easily ignored and pushed around, and is only useful in placating the people as a means to think they are making a difference without inconveniencing those who would harm the nation.
especially when the media is adversarial to your cause.
if you are at a protest and the police are not instructed to intervene, you know that the protest is performative. bring allot of people with guns. a protest is only as effective as the leverage it demands.
and the latent belief that others should be subservient.
that opinion involves other women. they can make what ever choices about themselves but the belief that others are to be subservient is evil.
good question, it’s not been going well for me
seems the democrats can’t win with a base. guess they are going to have to change their position…
you know, like our last primary.
in what way?
sure by all means, i went to one. was used by the media as a joke, because they do not represent leverage for change.
i think the argument is the available candidates think it is true more so then accusing you of believing it. and after today i have to admit i was lying about thinking violence would not be necessary, mainly told to not have to spend forever arguing over accelerationism. but after today…. i don’t think i care for the charade any longer
i would say that the gaza situation is a litmus test on the morals of any candidate. any candidate who would defend what we have done to others for israel can not be trusted in matters of morality, a trait that can not ever be permitted access to power in any means, and any power they currently have must be stripped from them.
sorry, but defense of continued genocide is a total non starter.
as for needing to appeal to Aipac money? if that is what is needed to win elections, then the cause is long ago lost at reforming the US via non violent means. but i dont think it is.
same thing that happened when the black panthers did it