sweetpotato

A lot of people don’t understand this honestly, it’s not about intelligence, it’s not even about being good or bad.

The reason we are against him is because he has conflicting interests with the people. He works for the oligarchs, for capital, not for humanity, not for the environment, not even for american citizens.

And my 2 cents on this discussion is that critiquing him for being a convicted felon and about the other cases he is accused of is a really disorienting and weak critique as well. He is not going to make our lives miserable because he is convicted, he is going to make our lives miserable because he is a far right, neoliberal fascist with no respect for human life. And on the contrary, many activists have been convicted of crimes, like Assange, but I’d do anything to have them as president. Having been convicted is practically irrelevant and highly dependent on the crime.

So instead the critique should be targeted at politics, not on personal issues… But then again the fact that the critique doesn’t always focus on politics is indicative a lot of times of the very small ideological gap between the two parties and how none offers any real alternative.

To think that there’s only one issue with the neoliberal democrats is so sad…truly. Don’t mistake focusing on Palestine with that being the only issue. Maybe if they didn’t like the wall so much or had any progressive economic policies or environmental ones, we’d talk about it. They are serving the oligarchs with a few social progressive policies, that’s too little, sorry

All of that just to see the “lesser” evil shift consistently to the right every election cycle. There has to be a red line at some point, a point where there’s no significant ideological difference, but no

No choice would help them and thinking the dems didn’t give Israel everything it wanted is the problem. But that’s what people who don’t really care would say, cause if you cared this entire year, you’d realize this and would’ve noticed the endless pleas for embargo.

Peak White people in the west* humanity

Being born wealthy isn’t really optional. It’s actually necessary and a big reason why this system is so absolutely terrible, because the American dream is a capitalist myth to manipulate the masses.

The exceptions are not always exceptions, like the apartheid boy Elon and the 1 in a million that actually is an exception is drilled into our brains by the media like how gambling companies make ads about the people that win the lottery.

Bakunin had said that everyone would be obliged to do manual work under socialism(I think I read that in Statism and Anarchy, don’t quote me on it, but it makes sense, someone has to do that, might as well all of us contribute), which is fair.

Also you can never get rid of logistics and factory related work imo, because concentrating the production means and scaling up factories is proven to be overwhelmingly more efficient in producing goods than producing them locally and independently. Producing flour in a big factory reduces the manual labour hours by tens and hundreds of times. So as I see it, these jobs will still be there.

The fundamental difference would be that people would actually work these jobs for like 2-3 hours every couple of days or so. This is because we have the capacity to cover everyone’s needs several times over, that’s how immensely huge our economy is. The west has to scale down a lot the economy cause we are producing way too much, that’s how much we produce. We would be able to cover our needs with so much less work than now.

Ukrainian genocide? Where is this even coming from?

Regardless, your comment reveals the answer to your dilemma. If the question is how many genocides/oppressions you are willing to put up with, then it’s a system worth abolishing. If one party commits 4 genocides and the other 5, then would you choose the one committing 4? There is necessarily a point where both parties are doing so badly, they’re indistinguishable and they are both crossing the red lines, that applies for everyone of us, no exceptions. So the question then remains, where do you draw the line for this?

Another example I usually give for this is: one party being Hitler and the other being Hitler but he is giving a little bit more money to the healthcare system. Would you vote for Hitler? No, so you have to draw the line somewhere. We draw it at a genocide(and at numerous more issues which are for another discussion)

I know you’d wish that, but unfortunately genocide is too much for me and the least evil argument doesn’t hold up anymore. There are red lines and dnc has absolutely crossed them. I’m not expecting you to understand, you clearly don’t care enough about the genocide.

I wouldn’t know since I am not a republican. I’m just absolutely not ok with the Palestinian genocide, but you care so little that you only seen republicans, regardless if the critique comes from the right or from the left. You’d wish you could make me look like a republican.

Rather unfortunate for you that the folks complaining about dnc being 100% complicit and funding the genocide, have never ever claimed that Trump is the better choice.

Also I love the genocide in quotes, really says all you need to know

Pretty unfortunate for you that there’s free speech then huh? Not letting you spew your dnc propaganda undisturbed

Ok because I see a lot of stupid shit in here, you don’t get to talk about banning tiktok if you don’t talk about banning Instagram, Reddit, X and YouTube, who use the same formula, with equal fervour.

Now please talk about healthcare, climate crisis, the Palestinian ethnic cleansing by that cancerous, land grabbing, terrorist Israeli state and the shrinking buying power of the people all around the world.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

“brought unprecedented war to Gaza”???

Last time I checked, that’s Israel’s business. Yk turning Gaza into an open air prison, oppressing, stealing the land of the Palestinians, murdering them and torturing them, ethnically cleansing them…?

As much as you’d love to tarnish Palestinians liberation struggle, facts don’t really allow that. You’re just another genocide apologist

I didn’t say I don’t find differences between them, you are putting words in my mouth once again. I said that the differences are miniscule to me considering how ideologically opposite they are to me. I deeply care about what they do, if I didn’t care, I wouldn’t hate them so much. This argument doesn’t make any sense. If I don’t care about what they do, then why would I hate them?

Am I spreading voter apathy? Apathetic are the people that go vote for these two oligarchs without thinking about it ever. These fanatics are apathetic. I’m actually trying to make people think about it. I hate them and I’m explaining why it is so, I’m not apathetic about them and I don’t want people to be so, I want people to hate them as well, why is it so hard to grasp? Why do you say unrelated, wrong stuff and have me waste my time answering them? This is so clearly not what I said.

For the last part I don’t know what to say honestly. You say I don’t know how the status quo works(?) and your argument for it is some of the most vague phrases out together ever. “We had governments in Europe, America, Asia and Africa that worked against corporate interests until people became apathetic about it”. What am I supposed to say to this lmfao. No justification, nothing specified, no thought put into this, just vague, unrelated words put together.

If people like you, on the dnc payroll call me fascist(even in the most shameless way) I’m doing something right. This was such a waste of time lol

You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.

Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?

Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.

Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good

As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?

You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.

If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.

They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.

Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.