Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you. It may well be that, under Trump, more innocent people will be killed. Still, I have the preference of voting for people who reduce the number of innocent people being killed, rather than voting for people who condone it.
Yes, Trump is even worse. But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable. Humans will destroy themselves because they lack compassion for other living beings, and that’s just what it is. You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.
Yeah, that’s cool, so am I - that’s not the only thing that’s on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as “Well, I’m not voting for anyone”, but this is very much a “If you aren’t voting against Trump, you’re voting for him, directly or indirectly” situation.
It’s cool, though - I’m sure everyone will understand. You couldn’t do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue’s outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We’ll all overlook that.
It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.
Given that, I expect you’ll be voting for the ‘less bad’ candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the ‘more bad’ candidate in winning, then?
No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.
Yes, the most important single issue to me is not killing innocent people. If that’s not an important single issue to you, I disagree with your morality.
If the Overton Windows shifts further right, will be we arguing that we must vote Dem because they’ll criminalise fewer women who have miscarried? Because they’ll fight for the ‘least flamboyant queers’ to keep their jobs?
My stand is that killing innocent people is wrong. You can disagree, we seem to live in a world where killing innocent people on purpose is something that we have to put up with for the sake of democracy functioning.
You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent’s BUT that’s not even important.
You get to pick, you want more deaths, less deaths, or don’t care.
There are no other impacts you can have with your vote.
If you care deeply you can join marches and protest. The many people who are doing so will gladly tell you Harris is not doing enough, but that it would be idiotic to not vote for her.
I want to support a candidate who is against killing innocents.
You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent’s
I have personally talked to people who condone Israel killing innocent people. They rationalise it in all kinds of ways. That’s what people tend to do, which is why I am not fond of people.
Harris is calling for an investigation into Israel that would reduce the amount of innocent deaths, and they’ve been trying to negotiate a cease fire for a while now.
The executive branch has very little power to stop congress from approving funding for anything.
Executive branch has 100% control over actual spending. Congress could approve $10T for Israel, and executive can spend it as fast or slow or none as it feels like. Congresses only power is setting a ceiling on spending.
This sounds great but isn’t really true at all. Please don’t spread misinformation.
money Congress appropriates?
Yes, federal agencies must prudently plan to spend money during its period of availability, but the President can request that Congress cancel or rescind some of this funding. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (Impoundment Control Act) of 1974 outlines a fast-track procedure for legislation responding to a President’s rescission request. Upon submitting a proposal to Congress, the President can withhold the funds targeted for rescission for up to 45 days or until a withholding would prevent the funding from being prudently obligated. If Congress has not enacted legislation by the end of that period, the funds must be released, and they cannot be proposed for rescission again under the Impoundment Control Act. Until 2018, a president had not proposed a rescission under this process since 2000. In May 2018, President Trump sent a package of proposed rescissions to Congress for consideration. Congress did not act on that request to approve any of the proposed reductions under the fast-track procedure, and the funding was released.
Ok, thank you. There was a lot of unspent covid relief allocations, fussed over without anyone in congress trying to force the spending. It would seem impossible to impose quality of spending criteria.
There was a lot of unspent covid relief allocations, fussed over without anyone in congress trying to force the spending.
Yes, but those might have helped Americans. When it’s propping up the political career of the fascist head of a genocidal apartheid state, that’s when congress springs into action and makes it happen. Funny how Netanyahu doesn’t have to wait for decades for incrementalists to get off their worthless asses to get what he wants.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.
If you think your stance is more moral than others’ and would like for people to agree with you, have you tried not being a complete cunt about it?
I have no dog in this race since I live in a country with a sane voting system, so you can spare me your performative moral outrage.
Unfortunately the voting system is the only sane part about Finland. Our current government is so far right that it includes multiple literal neo-Nazis and a pedophile neo-Nazi (who stepped in to replace a neo-Nazi), and multiple ministers (well ok, a minister and the Speaker of the Parliament) have fantasized in public about murdering eg. gay people or foreigners. The Speaker of the Parliament is also one of the right wing mass murderer Breivik’s idols, and has obliquely spoken in support of Breivik’s act of terror.
This place is a conservative shithole and I suggest anyone considering a vacation here to go somewhere else, especially if you’re not white or cishet
The Speaker of the Parliament is also one of the right wing mass murderer Breivik’s idols, and has obliquely spoken in support of Breivik’s act of terror.
Killing the outgroup is popular. This is because “if we oppress them, we look good because we have power.”
People like him make it clear that we’re soon going to be in a “us or them” situation here – these people literally want to murder leftists, 50% of the country’s voting age population supports them (and distressingly the youth vote went to the right), and their rhetoric is getting more and more violent by the day.
This current government is normalizing fascist speech and tactics, and it won’t be too long until talk of some sort of final solution to the leftist question will be completely normal, and after that it won’t be too long until they actually start implementing it. Unfortunately the majority of people who are willing to use political violence are conservatives, because like I said, soon it’s going to be us or them.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you.
[…]
You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.
cries about people being rude
makes weird jabs about formatting when their hypocrisy is pointed out
I’m against innocent people being killed. I’m sorry that upsets you. It may well be that, under Trump, more innocent people will be killed. Still, I have the preference of voting for people who reduce the number of innocent people being killed, rather than voting for people who condone it.
Yes, Trump is even worse. But killing innocent people is still so bad that I am harmed by it being politically acceptable. Humans will destroy themselves because they lack compassion for other living beings, and that’s just what it is. You can get angry at me because I don’t like that, but that’s just another lack of compassion, and I won’t be surprised.
Yeah, that’s cool, so am I - that’s not the only thing that’s on the ballot, though, and you can try to justify it as “Well, I’m not voting for anyone”, but this is very much a “If you aren’t voting against Trump, you’re voting for him, directly or indirectly” situation.
It’s cool, though - I’m sure everyone will understand. You couldn’t do the bare minimum to prevent an authoritarian takeover because you felt very strongly about one issue. Nevermind that your actions actually made that issue’s outcome worse for the people you purport to care about. We’ll all overlook that.
AKA:
“Why are you hitting that screw with a hammer?”
“I refuse to use a screwdriver; it takes too long and I’m morally opposed to patents that you get with screwdriver heads.”
“You do know that your hammering is going to make a total mess of things, rIght?”
“I don’t care; it’s the principled stance I’m willing to take to build this house.”
Claims to have a principled opposition to screwdriver head patents: buys screws anyway.
Sounds like the Democrats to me. All “I’m the anti-genocide candidate!” while shipping cluster bombs to the middle east.
It’s possible for both to be correct. You can’t fix the US government by voting third party for President, because the system isn’t set up to support that. First you have to deal with the electoral college and FTTP voting, then the laws on the books, which means electing third party representatives who are willing to support changing the laws.
And on the other hand, the President can at least call out what Congress is doing that’s enabling genocide in the middle east instead of politely asking for both sides to stop killing each other so everyone can talk, while representing the people sending weapons to one side of the conflict, who are taking advantage of their position in government to methodically wipe out an entire people.
deleted by creator
I was told that no one can because AIPAC.
Thank you for saying this.
AKA: whatever this tedious bullshit is.
Yes, I feel very strongly about innocent lives.
Given that, I expect you’ll be voting for the ‘less bad’ candidate, rather than wasting your vote on a protest candidate which only assists the ‘more bad’ candidate in winning, then?
No, I will not be voting. If I were to be able to vote, I would prefer a candidate who works to stop innocent people from being killed, rather than condone it happening. I find that quite an important moral issue.
If you’d be just as happy with Donald “Do what you have to do” Trump as with Harris, you can’t feel too strongly about innocent lives.
You can’t go from an “if” to a “you” accusatory statement so well when that “if” isn’t true.
If the ‘If’ isn’t true, then the ‘you’ doesn’t apply to you, that’s how conditionals work.
You’re a single issue voter. Think about that.
Yes, the most important single issue to me is not killing innocent people. If that’s not an important single issue to you, I disagree with your morality.
If the Overton Windows shifts further right, will be we arguing that we must vote Dem because they’ll criminalise fewer women who have miscarried? Because they’ll fight for the ‘least flamboyant queers’ to keep their jobs?
My stand is that killing innocent people is wrong. You can disagree, we seem to live in a world where killing innocent people on purpose is something that we have to put up with for the sake of democracy functioning.
In politics you choose a direction. Do you want more death, less death, or don’t care about the deaths.
Trump is more deaths, Harris is less deaths, not voting is that you don’t care about the deaths (or a different differentiating issue matters more)
Those are your choices when it comes to voting and encouraging others to vote.
That is your impact, pick one
Voting for someone who condones killing innocents is not acceptable.
You are inventing that anyone is condoning killing innocent’s BUT that’s not even important.
You get to pick, you want more deaths, less deaths, or don’t care.
There are no other impacts you can have with your vote.
If you care deeply you can join marches and protest. The many people who are doing so will gladly tell you Harris is not doing enough, but that it would be idiotic to not vote for her.
I want to support a candidate who is against killing innocents.
I have personally talked to people who condone Israel killing innocent people. They rationalise it in all kinds of ways. That’s what people tend to do, which is why I am not fond of people.
Harris is calling for an investigation into Israel that would reduce the amount of innocent deaths, and they’ve been trying to negotiate a cease fire for a while now.
The executive branch has very little power to stop congress from approving funding for anything.
That is good.
Executive branch has 100% control over actual spending. Congress could approve $10T for Israel, and executive can spend it as fast or slow or none as it feels like. Congresses only power is setting a ceiling on spending.
This sounds great but isn’t really true at all. Please don’t spread misinformation.
From here: http://democrats-budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheets/frequently-asked-questions-about-federal-budget#Congress appropriates
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
Ok, thank you. There was a lot of unspent covid relief allocations, fussed over without anyone in congress trying to force the spending. It would seem impossible to impose quality of spending criteria.
Yes, but those might have helped Americans. When it’s propping up the political career of the fascist head of a genocidal apartheid state, that’s when congress springs into action and makes it happen. Funny how Netanyahu doesn’t have to wait for decades for incrementalists to get off their worthless asses to get what he wants.
If you think your stance is more moral than others’ and would like for people to agree with you, have you tried not being a complete cunt about it?
I have no dog in this race since I live in a country with a sane voting system, so you can spare me your performative moral outrage.
You don’t have a spare room by any chance, do you?
Unfortunately the voting system is the only sane part about Finland. Our current government is so far right that it includes multiple literal neo-Nazis and a pedophile neo-Nazi (who stepped in to replace a neo-Nazi), and multiple ministers (well ok, a minister and the Speaker of the Parliament) have fantasized in public about murdering eg. gay people or foreigners. The Speaker of the Parliament is also one of the right wing mass murderer Breivik’s idols, and has obliquely spoken in support of Breivik’s act of terror.
This place is a conservative shithole and I suggest anyone considering a vacation here to go somewhere else, especially if you’re not white or cishet
Killing the outgroup is popular. This is because “if we oppress them, we look good because we have power.”
People like him make it clear that we’re soon going to be in a “us or them” situation here – these people literally want to murder leftists, 50% of the country’s voting age population supports them (and distressingly the youth vote went to the right), and their rhetoric is getting more and more violent by the day.
This current government is normalizing fascist speech and tactics, and it won’t be too long until talk of some sort of final solution to the leftist question will be completely normal, and after that it won’t be too long until they actually start implementing it. Unfortunately the majority of people who are willing to use political violence are conservatives, because like I said, soon it’s going to be us or them.
If you don’t defend human decency against violence, you don’t get human decency.
No, but I have tried blocking people who are rude.
I’m actually more upset about how terrible your post formatting is.
I’ll leave you to your fascist country, Hopefully they won’t kill you. Maybe that’s why you’re so upset? It has nothing to do with me.