Team blue foolishly tried to govern in good faith. Meanwhile team obstruction are done now blocking supreme court nominations and bipartisan legislation, and are completing their metamorphosis from obstruction to plain old destruction. The slowest, most blatant coup in history and somehow no one was particularly interested in stopping it. With all the immigrants in concentration camps, storms and natural disasters spiralling out of control, sweetheart deals for iron fisted billionaires and the unraveling of public health, education, and runaway inflation, who will the scapegoat be when they control all three branches of government?

It’s a good thing those righteous big brains banged the drum so much about Harris’ lukewarm Palestine rhetoric. Thanks a lot you fucking idiots.

The world feels like: Democrats are the cops, the DNC is the FBI, Trump is Hans Gruber, Bernie Sanders is Al Powell, America is the Christmas party (it even includes a pregnant woman in peril). We’ll say Kamala Harris is Holly Gennero, Joe Biden is Mr. Takagi, protest voters are Ellis, and Gen Z is Argyle. Richard Thornburg has failed us, the power’s been cut, and the hostages are on the roof. But we don’t have a John MacClane. I don’t know what drastic measure needs to be taken. But it would be really great if we could keep the burglars-cum-terrorists from blowing us to smithereens and making off with the loot.

To elicit a response is to feel powerful. The greater the response, the more power perceived. It’s a self worth issue. America is dying from low self esteem. The bravado we project is just some small dick energy, over compensation. We are a nation of people trying to buy an identity from a car dealership. Presently this yearning for purpose has been disastrously harnessed by jackals.

Vote. Pressure those around you to vote as well. I had to watch Gore lose, Hillary lose, we can’t keep doing this.

This feels like a trauma response, haha. I’m right there with you.

If anything it telegraphs uncertainty with the PA joke.

At best, one candidate doesn’t do enough to oppose genocide, while the other candidate offers their full throated support, advising that Isreal “just finish the job”. We’re not looking for a perfect candidate, we’re looking for the best candidate. And there is absolutely a candidate with a better track record of compassion, and a likelier chance of fighting the fire rather than fueling it in exchange for political favors.

You’re using some pretty high flying rhetoric for someone who isn’t citing any specifics. Which “horrible shit” are you most concerned with? The 20 billion dollar settlement she won for people with foreclosed homes? The 1.1 billion dollar settlement she won for defrauded students and veterans? The tie breaking votes she cast in the Senate, more than anyone in history, that helped pass among other things the 1.9 trillion dollar covid 19 stimulus, and the inflation reduction act, which generated 115 billion in tech investments and generated an estimated 95 thousand new jobs? Her explicit opposition to the death penalty? Her work against hate crimes? Her defense of the LGBTQ community? She is capable, intelligent, and proven.

Really, nothing at all qualifies her? Not her 6 years as an attorney general? Or her 4 years as a senator? Her 3 years as vice president? She’s better educated, has a better resume, doesn’t have 30 something felonies, and isn’t 78 years old. We already tried Trump as president once and America survived by the skin of our teeth. And he has not improved as a candidate in any way in the intervening 4 years.

Say you need a life saving operation. Your choices are: a skilled surgeon who is suspected to have cheated on their spouse, George Clooney from the hit TV show ER, or a mediocre at best veterinarian. This is essentially the state of things. A qualified person, a fictional character, and a person who is tangentially qualified at best.

The country needs a life saving operation. Harris is extremely qualified candidate who at worst carries some of the murky ethical baggage of any career politician. Trump is not only unqualified, but uniquely contraindicated (vindictive, foreign debts, exceedingly old, litany of bonafide legal issues, unrepentant rapist). And Stein is at best a politician shaped object, who is perhaps qualified enough to be a pundit or a podcast host.

For the safety of people of color, for women, for the environment, for the rule of law, for diplomacy, for the economy, there is only one pragmatic choice, and that choice is Harris.

Exactly. I have no doubt Harris will win the popular vote. Unfortunately that’s not necessarily good enough to win. And even if she wins, Trump supporters are absolutely not interested in a civilized society.

Trump would just accuse Kamala of raping an even younger, even darker skinned child and his base would clap their hand and coo and drool and continue to babble on.

I’m waiting with bated breath for this to be picked up by a more neutral source so I can boost the shit out of this without being dismissible.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say sure, both sides gerrymander just as egregiously (which frankly, they do not.) This would makes it a wash balancing out pros and cons of either choice as it relates specifically to the 2024 presidential race. Which leads us back to the world of pragmatism. Which candidate is liklier to encourage greater voter turnout and representation if elected? Probably not the guy who represents the party that is removing scores of names from voters rolls. Probably not the guy who opposes mail in ballots. Of the two options, which candidate would benefit more from voter suppression? Probably the guy who won the election for just the fifth time in our countries history while simultaneously losing the popular vote in 2016. Probably the guy who called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure them to “find 11,780 votes” and overturn the state’s election results from the 2020 presidential election. Of the two candidates in the 2024 presidential race, only one of them stands to benefit by more votes being cast and counted in subsequent elections. Therefore Harris is once again, the likeliest hope for improvement.

If you wish to find out, I recommend voting for the candidate that is most interested in preserving the democratic process, rather than the one who idolizes dictators, doesn’t support the peaceful transfer of power, and who’s party is held together by gerrymandering. Furthermore , if you wish to improve our democracy I recommend the ticket discussing ranked choice voting, and who are interested in eliminating the electoral college.

The fact that one is the worst does in fact mean that the other one is better by definition. We aren’t voting to fix western civilization in one fell swoop, we’re voting for the 2024 united states president. The pragmatic choice is the best available candidate, which is probably the one who doesn’t discuss shooting people on 5th avenue, or grabbing women by their genetials, or mock reporters with disabilities, or make reference to “shit hole countries”, or salute the dictator of North Korea, or get convicted of 34 felonies, or say that Israel should just “finish the job”, or who isn’t 78 years old. Call me crazy.

I don’t know what this article is about, and I’d rather not engage with this segment of society to find out, but from a quick Google images search it seems like she recently (?) caught flack for a Valentino dress, which was very sheer and through which her nipples could be seen. But anyone who’s been paying any attention to fashion at all would know that sheer is very much “in”. The latest Yves Saint Laurent line is a prime example of this. As for the quality of her body, which seems to be an unusually frequent topic, why’s it anyone’s business? Can a woman exist anywhere on this planet and not be objectified and scrutinized like livestock?

Here’s a thought experiment. Between the two likeliest candidates, who would you rather assemble some ikea furniture with, Trump or Harris? Who would you rather go on a road trip with? Who would you rather be stranded at sea with? You can keep escalating these scenarios until the stakes get higher and higher. At some point it should dawn on you that Trump cannot fend for himself. He is unpleasant to work with. And that he is untrustworthy as a teammate. On a fundamental level he is the worst person of the two. Handing him the keys to the country is suicidal.

Maximum. It would be like book burning, but with people.