Blade Posted July 27 Posted July 27 4 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Oh he's in Forsyth…that makes more sense This better be an audition. They couldn't have eliminated from the race already.
Sannie Posted July 27 Posted July 27 11 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Oh he's in Forsyth…that makes more sense Maybe I'm being delusional and operating on hope, but there's no way this guy who rarely leaves Kentucky is suddenly leaving Kentucky for no reason. 1
Vroom Vroom Posted July 27 Posted July 27 2 minutes ago, Sannie said: Maybe I'm being delusional and operating on hope, but there's no way this guy who rarely leaves Kentucky is suddenly leaving Kentucky for no reason. He's campaigning for himself. Wealthy donors are pushing for Shapiro and Kelly I'm team Beshear now. He will do the least amount of damage (unless he has skeletons in his closet), the youth vote wants him, and he gives off lovable dork vibes. But Dems rarely pick governors on their presidential tickets Spoiler 2020: Senator-Senator 2016: Senator-Senator 2012: Senator-Senator 2008: Senator-Senator 2004: Senator-Senator 2000: Senator-Senator 1996: Governor-Senator 1992: Governor-Senator 1988: Governor-Senator 1984: Senator-Rep 1980: Governor-Senator
ClashAndBurn Posted July 27 Posted July 27 29 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Those lefties are the ones who will never be satisfied with anyone or anything. Honestly I wouldn't pay much attention to either side 😂 let's just keep the momentum going and hope for the best in November 👏🏼 I can personally put aside Kamala's baggage if she picks anyone other than Shapiro. At which point, I wish nothing but the best for Holocaust Harris with Genocide Josh, but that ticket is an absolute no from me. 1 1 3
Blade Posted July 27 Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: I can personally put aside Kamala's baggage if she picks anyone other than Shapiro. At which point, I wish nothing but the best for Holocaust Harris with Genocide Josh, but that ticket is an absolute no from me. I hope the people within her campaign that are anti-Shapiro are sounding the alarms. She can win the white house without him. 2
N.M.K. Posted July 27 Posted July 27 15 minutes ago, Vroom Vroom said: He's campaigning for himself. Wealthy donors are pushing for Shapiro and Kelly I'm team Beshear now. He will do the least amount of damage (unless he has skeletons in his closet), the youth vote wants him, and he gives off lovable dork vibes. But Dems rarely pick governors on their presidential tickets Reveal hidden contents 2020: Senator-Senator 2016: Senator-Senator 2012: Senator-Senator 2008: Senator-Senator 2004: Senator-Senator 2000: Senator-Senator 1996: Governor-Senator 1992: Governor-Senator 1988: Governor-Senator 1984: Senator-Rep 1980: Governor-Senator "Wealthy donors" lmao the nefarious conspiracies
N.M.K. Posted July 27 Posted July 27 6 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: I can personally put aside Kamala's baggage if she picks anyone other than Shapiro. At which point, I wish nothing but the best for Holocaust Harris with Genocide Josh, but that ticket is an absolute no from me. Yea. Holocaust Harris is really appropriate. Evoking the holocaust where 6 million people were murdered solely for being Jewish against candidates who have maintained the one Jewish state's right to exist is totally not antisemitic. you can be pro Palestine and anti the mass suffering and killing of innocent people without using the tragedy of the holocaust against its survivors and descendants. 4 2
Sannie Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Unlike some, I don't support rounding up millions of immigrants and placing them in concentration camps (would be an actual holocaust here in the US btw) or the genocide of trans Americans, so I'm going to support the ticket either way. However, I want to remain excited about this race, and choosing someone gross would kill that buzz for me. For the first time in years I'm actually stoked about this and don't want this feeling to fade.
shelven Posted July 27 Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, Armani? said: ............. At some point people need to start suing over this stuff. Like I get that the traditional strategy is to not amplify it with a response, but this type of stuff is going to get WAY worse if it's not curbed now. 7
ClashAndBurn Posted July 27 Posted July 27 2 minutes ago, Sannie said: some, I don't support rounding up millions of immigrants and placing them in concentration camps Biden continued that Obama-Trump policy and Harris likely will as well. If I fully expect Shapiro to be fully worse on the Israel-Palestine issue than Biden, then why would I ever want him to be poised to be elevated to the presidency in 8 years? 5 minutes ago, N.M.K. said: Yea. Holocaust Harris is really appropriate. Evoking the holocaust where 6 million people were murdered solely for being Jewish against candidates who have maintained the one Jewish state's right to exist is totally not antisemitic. you can be pro Palestine and anti the mass suffering and killing of innocent people without using the tragedy of the holocaust against its survivors and descendants. Ethnostates have no inherent right to exist. Or at least they shouldn't. Pluralistic societies should be the goal, not ones that require certain citizens to be second-class or lower because they weren't born to be "God's chosen people" The existence of a Jewish ethnostate necessitates genocide and permanent displacement. 2 1
FameFatale Posted July 27 Posted July 27 11 minutes ago, Armani? said: ............. Almost 700k likes and 84 million views and not a single community note in sight saying it's AI generated. 1
Moloko Plus Posted July 27 Posted July 27 I told you guys Biden had some sort of medical emergency in Las Vegas that they're keeping under wraps. The UMC was fully on lockdown awaiting his arrival. 1 2
N.M.K. Posted July 27 Posted July 27 7 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Biden continued that Obama-Trump policy and Harris likely will as well. If I fully expect Shapiro to be fully worse on the Israel-Palestine issue than Biden, then why would I ever want him to be poised to be elevated to the presidency in 8 years? Ethnostates have no inherent right to exist. Or at least they shouldn't. Pluralistic societies should be the goal, not ones that require certain citizens to be second-class or lower because they weren't born to be "God's chosen people" The existence of a Jewish ethnostate necessitates genocide and permanent displacement. First, who said ethnostates have no inherent right to exist? Does any state actually have an inherent right to exist? Everything is arbitrary, so when the sole and insistent proposition that it is only the one Jewish state that should not exist, things become a bit suspect. Especially when that one state was created solely in response to a genocide that killed 2/3 of a continent's entire population of a people, while those same people (Jews) living in another area of the world (the Middle East) – were all exiled or persecuted (ethnically cleansed). And this coming after literal thousands of years of pogroms, persecution, and exile for Jewish people in every corner of the world. So to try to portray Israel – the one Jewish state in the entire world, that has given refuge to millions historically and presently persecuted – as a sole nefarious ethnostate solely created to subject others, is just ahistorical. The state of Israel – on the historical land of Jews who have maintained connections with the land for millennia – was created so a people who have been the minority for thousands of years, and were thus either killed or expelled because of that status, could finally have a state for self-determination and safety. Does that negate the historical and real ties of Palestinian to that land as well? Of course not. But to pretend Israel is just created for the purpose of "being God's chosen people" as an excuse to harm others is just purely false. And until people recognize the reason why the modern state of Israel was created in the first place, no real progress will be made. 1 5
ClashAndBurn Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 13 minutes ago, N.M.K. said: First, who said ethnostates have no inherent right to exist? Does any state actually have an inherent right to exist? Everything is arbitrary, so when the sole and insistent proposition that it is only the one Jewish state that should not exist, things become a bit suspect. Especially when that one state was created solely in response to a genocide that killed 2/3 of a continent's entire population of a people, while those same people (Jews) living in another area of the world (the Middle East) – were all exiled or persecuted (ethnically cleansed). And this coming after literal thousands of years of pogroms, persecution, and exile for Jewish people in every corner of the world. So to try to portray Israel – the one Jewish state in the entire world, that has given refuge to millions historically and presently persecuted – as a sole nefarious ethnostate solely created to subject others, is just ahistorical. The state of Israel – on the historical land of Jews who have maintained connections with the land for millennia – was created so a people who have been the minority for thousands of years, and were thus either killed or expelled because of that status, could finally have a state for self-determination and safety. Does that negate the historical and real ties of Palestinian to that land as well? Of course not. But to pretend Israel is just created for the purpose of "being God's chosen people" as an excuse to harm others is just purely false. And until people recognize the reason why the modern state of Israel was created in the first place, no real progress will be made. Israel was created because the West was run by racist Evangelicals who didn't even see Arabs as people, and didn't consider them and what their reaction to being forcibly displaced so that a bunch of settlers from Europe could steal their homes would be. Evangelicals want Jews to run Israel because of their belief that God's chosen people owning the land will bring about the Rapture. To answer your question about "does any state have a right to exist?" I certainly wouldn't say that about other settler colonial states, no. America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all illegitimate in my view, and the world would be better off if none of them existed as they do currently. Especially the United States. New Zealand much less than the others. Edited July 27 by ClashAndBurn 1 1
NausAllien Posted July 27 Posted July 27 1 minute ago, ClashAndBurn said: To answer your question about "does any state have a right to exist?" I certainly wouldn't say that about other settler colonial states, no. America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all illegitimate in my view, and the world would be better off if none of them existed as they do currently. Especially the United States.
Communion Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 4 hours ago, Rotunda said: don't think you're wrong, but facilitating the election of right wing individuals who boldly call for the extermination of Palestinians can also be read as empowering genocide. The issue we've established is that voting is not a moral action. We know this from liberal behavior. We know this from the behavior of most voters. Voting is transactional. Many Palestinians and Palestinian Americans already say there is no meaningful difference between Biden (and thus Kamala for now) and Trump. That arguments about "it could get worse" are not substantial when Biden has overseen the slaughter of 10% of Gaza. "Your inaction to stop Trump will make things for Palestinians worse" doesn't materially mean anything if Palestinians are then saying that there is little difference in the policies of both parties. Maybe Palestinian Americans aren't the audience for this argument. Maybe this is meant to convince other leftists, but 1) the voices of Palestinians dissenting against that there is meaningful difference between Biden/Harris and Trump will make that harder and 2) leftists rarely claim their voting habits are based on abstract morals. That they too exist in the context (!) of their material conditions and have their own slate of domestic policies they have issues with Biden for not supporting & want Kamala to support. I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 due to his stance on M4A and how it impacted my life, including a parent dying during the primary. Conversely, the idea of student loan payments going from $50 to $500 a month has caused inner turmoil over what I'd do in November. Of course living in a blue or red state likely defines our realities (in both directions, as self-catastrophizing over not voting for Biden in a blue state ends up feeling silly when that is the best environment to vote 3rd party). Clinton lost in 2016 because working class black Americans in the poorest parts of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania decided their material conditions would not meaningfully worsen under Trump, and no moralizing over who Trump was or what he'd do changed that. Dems should thus approach every election following with the view that they have to articulate people's suffering and offer a policy platform that improves people's lives. Edited July 27 by Communion 4
Sannie Posted July 27 Posted July 27 incoming statement from Harris condemning this which will make leftists angry. Not sure how she can avoid this? Should she just not acknowledge this stuff? 1
Sannie Posted July 27 Posted July 27 incoming statement from Harris condemning this which will make leftists angry. Not sure how she can avoid this? Should she just not acknowledge this stuff?
Blade Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Just now, Sannie said: incoming statement from Harris condemning this which will make leftists angry. Not sure how she can avoid this? Should she just not acknowledge this stuff? Wasn't there a strike at a hospital in Gaza today? Single statement condemning the violence and calling for a ceasefire again. 1
Recommended Posts