You will never know enlightenment, because you cannot conceive of being wrong.

I don’t like how this phrase has been weaponized but yeah nobody can deny that this is what’s happening here

Mommmm just one more assassination pleeeease then I’ll go to bed for real

Yes, but you see, they don’t stink

I mean, he who smelt it dealt it! runs away laughing

Huh, neat.

Thank you, you said it well. I agree wholeheartedly.

I thought we were past this type of rhetoric?

Russian bot probability: 10x average

This isn’t a grammar issue, this is a “you’re being vague” issue. I’m simply asking for clarity. If you cannot provide that, you don’t understand enough about your own position for me to care.

You have three options:

• Kamala’s policies
• Trump’s policies
• “I don’t care” (no vote)
• surprise mystery 4th option: vote 3rd party

One set of policies is more helpful to ending the war peacefully than the other is. If you cared about your cause instead of grandstanding, you’d vote for it. Not voting sends no signal, and on average ends up with a policy somewhere between the two options, which is worse than the better option by definition. If you’re going yo waste your vote, at LEAST vote third party so that your message will be heard.

Repubs will blame it on Dems for no reason

Can we please just skip this section of the news cycle? We know what’s going to happen

You keep using passive voice. When you say “it’s meant to be used that way”, what do you mean? Who meant it to be used that way? The people who created it? They didn’t intend this. The people who modified it over time? That’s more than one distinct group. Or are you saying the design of the system itself incentivizes that use? Because I don’t think I agree with that either.

Also as an aside: Depending on what you mean by “blame”, inanimate objects may be eligible imo. They can’t be culpable, but they can share causal blame.

(I also feel compelled to mention that civil asset forfeiture frequently assigns guilt to inanimate objects, but I think we can agree that that legal practice is batshit insane.)

How does recognizing that the government/infrastructure and such exists, and referring to that absolve anyone of anything?

Like I said, because you’re assigning the blame to The System instead of the people in it. Sometimes the system is set up in a way which harms people. Most of the time the people in the system are misusing it or ignoring protections that it stipulates to harm people. By always blaming The System only, you are ignoring the harm that these people in particular are causing and are misattributing the blame to other factors.

If the people are bad, the system will produce bad outcomes. It is easier to change the system than to change the people, but they still deserve blame.

Have you seen the debate?

Harris’s policy is a two-state solution. A ceasefire that by definition ends the genocide.

Trump’s solution is to, no joke, entirely wipe out Palestine.

How is this in any way comparable? You HAVE your anti-genocide option right now!

Why not both?

Just saying “The System” absolves the ones abusing it of blame

Thanks for the list, I’ll be trying these!