This seems to me like a signal that Democrats are formally cementing as a conservative / neoliberal party. Which makes sense. I guess maybe the upside is that maybe it will carve out room for an adjacent political body to the left as well, sort of like what happened with the tea party.

What actions does that involve? Which treaties would that break? Which other treaties can we then be ready for others to assume we’ll break? How will we respond to that in a way that prevents cascading trust collapse? Is there any way to guarantee to other allies that we won’t turn on them when expedient? How can we guarantee peace is even on the table if we’re suddenly regarded by the whole world as a betrayer? As even less reliable than we’ve already become?

One of the options is “unilaterally subject another country to our will”. I take it that’s what you want?

You’re not going to jab me into thinking you’re contributing in good faith. You aren’t. There’s only a few reasons to dig at Harris and Democrats for something an entirely different country is doing.

None of them are good. None help those we do have the power to help. None deescalate.

Worse, you use the lives of those we can’t help as shelter to make your horrid stance against those we can help seem like it’s somehow a bad choice.

It’s awful. I can’t imagine how you got there, and I don’t want to.

It only comes up with Harris because you don’t care as much about the genocide as much as you do about scoring political points. It’s horrible of you.

I don’t think “kill fewer people” is splitting hairs. I think it’s gross to leverage Palestine for political points but only against Democrats.

Arkansas?

I disagree that it’s “goddamn sad” when people get mad about others refusing to mitigate harm through votes, and cause irreparable damage instead. Loads of people have been using votes as a way to mitigate harm for decades now. They don’t have the luxury to do otherwise. What makes you so special? Why are you above reproach?

I think it makes sense to be mad about that. It’s awful to see a chance to prevent harm and refuse to. I won’t pretend it’s okay just because you think you can chunk up my post to dunk on select blurbs from it.

I do think they can make a better effort in their posts. I think you can, too.

Stein can run AND you can be a dolt for voting for her AND we legally permit you to vote like a dingus, but (also legally) you go on a vote tally and we know how many dolts there were and we get to mock you as a small comeuppance for your ruination of everyone else’s attempt to improve our daily lives and those around us.

Not to suggest that we get to mock you specifically! Because we protect everyone in that way. SO FAR. But you’ll know who we’re mocking. Because we protect that, too.

SO FAR.

Hope that helps you make a better comment next time.

I have an idea. Why don’t I put a bunch of my website stuff in one place, say a pdf, and you screw heads just buy that? We’ll call it a “book”

Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.

Yeah, voting is something that gets completely recharacterized when you think about it through the lens of harm reduction vs ideal broadcasting. (And, bluntly, for anyone reading this who might disagree: Since votes are private, they don’t cast ideals anyway.)

Why should I bother to watch something no one bothered to create?

“Goes”? It’s the same crowd. It always has been.

I think it’s pretty damn weird.

Plus you don’t owe that guy’s links a view just to respond to a comment. What nonsense