this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
211 points (71.3% liked)
Memes
56829 readers
482 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Compared to Democrats? How? Libya, Syria and Yemen were attacked under a Democratic president. In fact, Kamala said that Iran is the greatest threat in the world.
Or better yet, the escalation of the genocide under Joe Biden? The genocidal monster who loves "Israel" so much https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM
Turns out, outside of Amerika; there is in fact not a single fucking difference between these 2 parties. All you care about is domestic affair concerning your treats. You don't give a fuck about people outside your area.
๐ซฐ๐ซฐ๐ซฐ(That's snapping btw lol)
Like I don't even expect people to overthrow the government tomorrow or whatever. Shit's scary, I get it. But like, it would be super cool if they could stop aggressively defending the child crushing in front of the world, on the internet. As a start.
Do you seriously think most people want foreign wars?
Hello, I am a politician running on a proud history of supporting every war the US has been engaged in within my lifetime, as well as most of those outside of it. I would like to thank you for your vote, and please tell me - was your vote for me because of my warmongering or in spite of it? I sincerely await your answer, as it will mean a lot to what sort of policy I pursue <- How you seem to imagine it works when people vote for a warhawk despite their hawkishness.
So here, you say it's the practical effects of my vote (electing a warhawk) that matters, not the ideals behind it that wish for a different outcome (foreign wars are often harmful and unnecessary). But when I'm voting in the general, suddenly those ideals (voting third party) would be more important than the practical effect (getting a republican elected)? Is there a reason for this difference?
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.
No, see, you're switching out what I'm saying there. The practical effect of a vote is who ends up getting elected if you cast it. If I vote third party instead of voting for a democrat, the chance of the third party getting elected doesn't meaningfully improve, but the chance that a republican is elected does improve. The practical effect of my vote would be to increase the chance that a republican wins.
I find it ironic that you think I'm dense when I understand your argument perfectly fine and disagree with it, while you don't seem to understand mine at all.