davidagain

Kamala Harris doesn't support a ceasefire in secret, she calls for it openly, meanwhile Donald Trump, the only other person who could become president, phones up Netanyahu to tell him to reject Biden's ceasefire plan.

It's very clear. Your attempt to muddy the waters is just doing Trump's will. You occasionally claim not to support Trump, but all you ever talk about is how evil Harris is and you can barely scrape a sentence together every ten comments or so mildly conceding that Trump isn't perfect.

If you don't support him, why do you spend so much time online parroting his talking points? It's weird. Anyway, still doesn't address the point that vegans choosing neither makes things better and voters who care about Gaza choosing neither makes Trump win and things would be worse for Palestine and the Middle East and the USA, and women and trans folk and education, and you'd have Epstein's "best friend" and "the best king of Israel" back in the Whitehouse. Unless you vote for the only person who can stop him, the imperfect but much, much better Kamala Harris.

Did you see the "Trump is planning a third red scare" news headline, starting the article with

Donald Trump and his allies aren’t making a secret of it: if they win, they’re going to launch a campaign of repression to destroy the pro-Palestinian movement and the organized left.

No you didn't, not once, and your criticism "I'm worried that they don't mean what they say so I'm gonna make pretend that they love war" is like a drop in the ocean compared to the evils a trump presidency would inflict on the world.

Aw gee, look at my post about electoral arithmetic vs vegan arithmetic that you ignore completely and tell me DEmoCRats eViL as usual, with your favourite one sided unfair misrepresentation served up as the usual non sequitur with a side of classic @OBJECTION!-style glossing over how much worse trump would be for Palestine, the world and the USA.

Thanks, I hate it.

And my criticism of you is that you just PRETEND to care about Gaza so you can find reasons to get leftists to exclude themselves from choosing the president so that the right wins and everything gets WORSE in Gaza and rich idiots in the USA sit happily unaffected.

That you pretend to dislike Trump, but can't bring yourself to say more than 10% of what you say against him, and it'll be vague and not on any of the real issues and 90% of what you say will be both sidesing it and acting like the Democrats are worse than the Republicans.

Still doesn't compare.

If 10% of citizens who care about animals consistently don't eat pork or beef, the food industry reduces production and fewer pigs and cows get slaughtered for food.

If 10% of citizens who care about Palestinians don't vote, Trump wins and it's in Netanyahu's interest to prolong, advance and widen his genocidal flattening of Gaza, extend it to the whole of the West Bank, wipe out as much of Lebanon as he can and take the war to Iran. That and all the turning the military on left wing citizens, mass deportations, leaving women to lose their fertility or die for lack of healthcare nationality, put trans people in jail after calling them pedophiles and let their pedophile friends off scot free. Meanwhile the Democrats see that left wingers don't vote and the only votes they can chase are "centrists" and adopt more right wing policies because nothing moves the Overton window right more than a right wing government and there's no loopy logic that'll get you out of that reality.

If those 10% vote for Kamala Harris she continues to call publicly and privately for a ceasefire, and if the Democrats win both the House and the Senate they have the chance to actually change stuff and shit like the republicans' new law removing the president's power to delay and shipments gets washed away and there's a chance, albeit small, that Harris is in power long enough and securely enough to do as you advocate and pressurise Netanyahu to stop, but there's zero chance of that if she loses.

There's no third option. It's either Trump winning and everything getting worse, especially in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, the Middle East generally and the USA in particular, or Kamala winning and things getting marginally better.

Vegans make a positive difference by refusing both.

People like you make things much, much worse by refusing both.

Yeah, people already explained to you that you can choose neither beef nor pork and you will get neither beef nor pork, but if you choose neither the geriatric loony nor the sane candidate, you will still definitely get one of them. The vegan analogy is bogus because it's a scenario in which there's a free choice from a vast number of options. You keep saying you want neither, but you can't have neither. You have to have one of them as president.

In any literal sense this is true.

It is very much false, in any literal sense

I don't think you read the post you were responding to for understanding, you just read it for disagreement, because it doesn't say here what you act like it says. Re-read it.

Your first two criticisms were that you never said anything implying Trump would be better and that you wrote lots against him in threads I've never seen when the opportunity arises. (It's just the the opportunity somehow rarely arises.) I dealt with those two and clicked post because it was already long. So no, I didn't ignore your criticisms, I just disagreed with them. It's not the same thing.

When you spend all day every day criticising the vice president for things that she doesn't even have control over, when you dismiss the fact that Trump is actively convincing the one man who can actually decide to stop it to walk away from Biden's ceasefire deal, when all you talk about is how evil the Democrats are and ignore our dismiss or minimise anything bad about the republicans, less than a week before the election, don't be surprised or upset if people call you a trump supporter, because your actions certainly support him becoming president and not taking that threat seriously is foolish.

I challenge you to find one thing I have said, at any time, anywhere, that implies that.

It's not a single statement, it's a wall of argument. It's everything, you can't help yourself. The whole thrust of your argument, and there's a lot of it, implies your condemn the Democrats, excuse and condone the Republicans position.

It's the same in the very part I'm replying to. There's one sentence of criticism of Trump in the middle of a very long argument about how I'm wrong about everything I ever said and the Democrats are evil incarnate and me being so nasty to you is why you dislike Kamala and how everything wrong in the world can be laid at the feet of the Democrats again.

Your bias shines through. You're both sidesing the whole thing.

It's disingenuous. It's sometimes clever, sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, sometimes unsubtle, but it's always a false equivalence. I don't buy your sham theoretical neutrality any more than I buy utility contracts on my doorstep.

Again, if you don't like being called a Republican or a trump supporter, don't spend all day repeating their talking points on the internet and heckling anyone who has anything bad to say about Trump or anything good to say about Harris, and don't conclude in every single post that it's all Kamala's fault and she could snap her fingers now to stop it. It isn't and she can't.

It's not ad hominem to point out that all of your criticisms are for the Democrats and you can barely muster half a sentence of admission that trump might not be the savior of Gaza you're implying, and that your whole argument is politically biased against the Democrats and for the republicans.

If you don't want to be accused of being a trump supporter, at least make some effort towards even a tiny bit of balance. But no, you can't do it. For you, any factual criticism of trump and the republicans must be countered by a wall of conspiracy theory about how Biden's attempts to negotiate peace are secretly war mongering and trump's open and boastful war mongering is swept under the carpet.