Removed by mod

It’s almost like sending bombs to kill innocent children might be one of those wedge issues

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

No, I sure don’t. Talking endless shit about Biden will affect more than the primary.

And most people aren’t saying you need to vote for Biden in the primary. They’re talking about the general.

Genuinely not true. Our electoral system more or less requires two candidates de facto to function - it is not a failure of the commons, it’s a failure of the systems of government. We need ranked choice voting, at which point we can actually begin to meaningfully remove ourselves from this insanity and have more than two de facto political parties.

Voting third party is the same as not voting in the United States under our current system.

You cant vote your way out of a system that isnt designed for you to manipulate. They wont let a third party candidate get even close. We arent here because we voted our way here when the electoral college decides the election.

The comic you posted doesn’t match what your post says.

at least in my area, the Democrats are progressive as hell

As someone who lives in South Dakota, I envy you. The Democrats here tend to be even worse than Pelosi. They’re Blue Dog through and through.

I’ve considered running locally myself, but my “radical” beliefs would definitely be exposed, and I don’t want my husband to deal with the death threats. That, and my work schedule.

To be clear, I agree with everything you’ve said. You are quite a bit more articulate than I am.

As further testing: bitching, bitchin’, bitchass, bitchface, biiitch, biiiiitch, binch, bongo.

edit: You’re on lemmy.ml, my guy. Pretty sure they censor a bunch of nonsense.

some where in there is Israel and we might need a fourth spiderman for maybe the US.

There’s no such thing as a good state. All states gradually trend toward fascism, at varying rates. But this quote from “Anarchism and Its Aspirations” by Cindy Milstein really helped me parse situations like this, especially since it cites Palestine as an example:

If we understand this sense of negative and positive freedom, what appears as a contradictory stance within anarchism makes perfect sense. An anarchist might firmly believe that the Palestinian people deserve to be liberated from occupation, even if that means that they set up their own state. That same anarchist might also firmly believe that a Palestinian state, like all states, should be opposed in favor of nonstatist institutions. A complete sense of freedom would always include both the negative and positive senses—in this case, liberation from occupation and simultaneously the freedom to self-determine. Otherwise, as both actually existing Communist and liberal regimes have demonstrated, “freedom from” on its own will serve merely to enslave human potentiality, and at its most extreme, humans themselves; self-governance is denied in favor of a few governing over others. And “freedom to,” on its own, as capitalism has shown, will serve merely to promote egotistic individualism and pit each against each; self-determination trumps notions of collective good. Constantly working to bring both liberation and freedom to the table, within moments of resistance and reconstruction, is part of that same juggling act of approximating an increasingly differentiated yet more harmonious world.

If you want to vote uncommitted, that’s on you. If you’re trying to delegitimize Biden by arguing that he’s complicit in genocide in open forum, you’re trying to hand the presidential election to fascists.

… Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent …

The intent is probably the most important part of this definition and I don’t believe that Israel fulfills that part. There are extensive measures taken to prevent civilian deaths. However this is still a war, in which civilians die.

There are also rules about human shields which defines using human shields as “… intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians …”. Which Hamas has undeniably been doing.

The burden to keep civilians out of military targets falls to the governing authority, which is Hamas.

It is important to recognize, that all these rules around war are designed to protect some groups (civilians) while still allowing for military operations. The problem is, that if these rules were to prevent nations from pursuing military objectives, because the other party commits war crimes (such as using human shields) nobody would follow these laws.

For that reason civilians kind of loose most protections when used as human shields (§3). As well as proportionally laws taking effect, that permit civilian harm to an extend if it is necessary to pursue proportionally valuable military objectives.

THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S NOT BAD, just probably not illegal under international law. It is reasonable to demand change and to condemn Israel on moral grounds however. Personally I also believe Israel needs to do some big changes in regards to settlements and humanitarian aid. But also the status quo needed to change. I don’t understand Hamas’ goal, they obviously will never win. Idk why they are refusing ceasefire agreements etc. I understand resentment against Israel, but let’s be real, their negotiating power just becomes less and less.

And obviously everything needs to be investigated, but I don’t know if any damming convictions actually come from this.

You could take that to mean that Ukraine is committing genocide against the Russians because they are “destroying a national group in part” by “killing members of the group.” Literally any warfare would be defined as genocide under this. It’s utterly meaningless and needs to be better defined.