By voting for Trump, you have insured the Palestinians are much worse off. At least with Harris there would’ve been a possibility of the US eventually condemning the genocide. Now we have the Trump admin cheering it on. So, how did voting the way you did help the Palestinian people?
I blame the DNC for constantly shooting themselves in both feet, especially when it comes to their insistence on running sham primaries. I blame the neoliberals in both parties for creating the propaganda and legal bribery industries that shifted the Overton window so far right in this country. I blame voters like you, for not being able to see the forest for the trees when the options we’re given are more neoliberalism, or blatant fascism. You chose now, of all times, to put your foot down with the DNC, because that’s what the bandwagon was doing. Now you think your rage at the system justifies a decision, that you made, that helped bring us outright fascism. Meanwhile, minorities like me get to sit here wondering why so many leftists were willing to sacrifice us on the alter of idealogical purity. If you were actually concerned about Palestinians, you would’ve voted for the option that had potential to ease their suffering. In other words, there would’ve been far more political pressure on Harris to do something about the genocide. Instead, we got Trump talking about “wiping it clean” for new development. If you want to continue to justify implicitly voting for Trump, by abstaining, then please explain how Trump is better for Palestine than Harris. That was your primary motivation for not voting after all, right?
They are receiving plenty of blame. In the mean time, we get to watch Trump destroy our country, cheer on the genocide in Gaza, and openly flirt with invading our allies. All thanks to the morons that bought into propaganda telling them not to vote.
There are general strikes happening all over the US this Saturday!
Edit for grammer :)
Why? This is the kind of “reporting” we always see after the US bombs people.
It says the “bad people” are “allegedly” doing something we think might be scary. It aims to plant seeds in our minds that the houthi’s are the new terrorist group of the year and our tax dollars need to go towards bombing them out of existence. Personally, I’m tired of the working class funding a war machine, that only serves imperialist interests, while we’re left trying to live off of scraps.
Right. The US does 1000x more of this kind of stuff, but we’re supposed to read this propaganda piece like “OoOOoh these brown people 10k miles away might be doing something scary! Better support our gov indiscriminately bombing them!”
Nice try propagandists. We are not our parents and grandparents.
Oh, for sure! In modern cars, absolutely! Wish I could afford something with that kind of power and mpg’s… lol
Depends on your needs and typical traffic you have to deal with. In Texas, I have to deal with an endless horde of bullies in duallies and SUV Karen’s. It’s nice to have some passing power in certain situations… If I lived somewhere more rural, or with generally more kind people in traffic, I’d be fine with less.
Highlanders are awesome! It’s basically a rav4 with a camry drivetrain. I want one!
I think you’re right, I side-stepped the point a bit. I was pointing out the similar complexity of modern ICE cars with the relative simplicity of EV hardware. EV’s are so much more simple, down to a component level. An electric motor is a single spinning shaft with a couple bearings involved.
I’m really only speaking on current technology that consumers have access to. Planned obsolescence and ransom-ware software that locks everyone out of doing repairs, except for a certified dealer technician, are issues that are affecting most vehicles being made these days. So, to criticize new technologies over software issues like that just seems ignorant, or disingenuous to me. Further than that, IMHO, most of the legitimate issues with EV’s come down to systemic or political issues that essentially boil down to some human minds not keeping pace with overall human imagination and advancement, and unchecked industry leaders/monopolies throwing down constant road blocks to protect their current profit schemes.
To your point, with the way things are now, generally speaking, someone in a very rural area is probably better off with a 90’s era 2.4L Toyota T100. At least until the infrastructure and auto industry standards catch up.
From a mechanical standpoint, this is a silly argument. I’ve worked on cars for approx. 15 years as a hobby/side hustle, owned a mobile mechanic business for 2.5 years, and worked at a auto shop for a time as well. Trust me, EV’s are far more simple, hardware-wise. You could argue they’re not simple, software-wise, for the average consumer to work on themselves, but that would ignore the relative complexity of modern CANbus systems in new cars, with dozens of subsystems feeding multiple computers, all of which can malfunction and cause problems for the whole system. Such as when an led tail-light breaks and that bricks the whole car, leaving the owner potentially stranded.
ICE vehicles have to rely on and maintain multiple pressurized systems (with dozens of specialized seals), vacuum, dozens (sometimes hundreds) of sensors, relays, and valves, not to mention rapid heat differentials, all of the moving parts with bearings and added weights to counteract various forces…
I love the idea of only having to work on suspension/steering/brakes from time to time. Have a motor issue? Unplug it, undo a few bolts, and put a new one in over a single beer. Sounds awesome to me…
Potentially losing your job would be part of the risk/sacrifice a potential candidate would have to accept. Yes, it would be difficult for someone living paycheck to paycheck to do this. Ideally, election reform like this would go hand in hand with economic reform that leads us to a society in which much less people are living paycheck to paycheck. This could happen easily if we start electing real people instead of rich people only.
One option is to publicly fund candidates equally. In such a system someone could apply to run for a position, the position would require a specified amount of people to nominate that person, if that person is nominated they get a grant that covers their campaign costs. The amount wouldn’t be excessive so campaigns would look very different than they do now in places like the US.
Another option is to limit campaign donations from any individual to $100 total. This would force politicians to put effort into building a grassroots campaign while keeping big moneyed interests out of the process.
When politicians get into a position of power, they should be paid enough that they’re firmly in the upper middle class, so they’re comfortable and less likely to accept bribes, and they should not be given any opportunity to accept bribes or profit off of their position in any way.
Did you read their entire comment?
The government income and pension should be enough to live on so that these issues can be avoided.
Good. Glad you actually voted. A lot of people parroting the ideology you’re parroting didn’t vote, thus implicitly voting for Trump. The dems lost because of a number of strategic failings but, I agree, not outright condemning the genocide in Gaza was one of them. We can blame the DNC for that, and blame the abstainers for not putting up a fight against fascism at the same time.
If that’s your take-away from the points I raised, then I don’t know what to tell you.