The short of the entire situation is libs are happy when the crosshair is on someone else and don't like it when the crosshair is on them. That's it folks
well, i've made good choices in my life, a fact that is continually re-validated whenever the crosshairs settle on someone else.
They're the exact same as the fundie chuds who gloat about storms punishing new York for being godless commies but with means testing liberalism instead of a Bible with red words in it.
In the majority of cases the crosshairs won’t even be on them. They just don’t want a got dang cheeter in the White House because it makes them feel funny about their precious democracy.
Yeah voters coming in from....Palestine? Does this person think Isreal is currently attacking Ohio? That's the only explanation I can think of.
Yeah east Palestine. Which is really gratuitous, didn't they already have that chemical spell/fire from a derailment a year or two ago?
Yes. And Biden made sure to crush the strike that could have prevented other accidents like it.
Right. Most pro union president; our strikebreaker in chief! Like how Harris was always so good to trans people.
Their lives don't matter to libs other than to make people with principles feel bad about not backing their preferred genocidal candidate.
These are the same people now trying to get family members of the Latino community who voted for Trump deported; liberals aren't good people and they're no friends of the working class.
Charitable interpretation- they might be referring to the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. You know when "Gazans VOTED FOR HAMAS" etc, conveniently ignoring that tens of thousands of victims of this genocidal campaign hadn't even been born yet, and tens of thousands more were obviously too young to vote. (Edit: and who fucking cares it doesn't justify anything.)
But really, this person is no doubt referring to the USA election and the extent of their analysis is "my political opponents hate when people are slaughtered so this is funny and good."
Argue with one of these idiots and be prepared to see gold-medal mental gymnastics.
Harris wasn't Joe Biden
She said she wouldn't do anything differently
Joe Biden was working on a ceasefire. Trump is going to finish the job!
He had over a year and not only didn't get one, he kept shipping weapons. Why would you do that if you wanted a ceasefire?
Harris called for a ceasefire.
She also said her support for Israel was unconditional. How were you going to get a ceasefire if you're continuing to support the side that refuses to agree to a ceasefire?
That's fake news! She didn't actually say that.
Here it is on CN-fucking-N
You're forgetting that Hamas is a terrorist organization!
Even if it were, how do you defeat a terrorist organization by bombing refugee camps?
The law says we have to support Israel!
The law also says we can't ship weapons to states committing gross human rights violations. Quite the quandary.
If we don't support Israel, Iran would wipe them out.
Well maybe they should've considered that before doing all the terrorism and violating Iran's sovereignty by carrying out assassinations on their soil and the genocide.
Iran is a settler-colonial state. The native religion of Iran isn't Islam, it's Zoroastrianism. The Muslims are colonists!
i sometimes wish that there was a liberal who could defend positions like these in an intelligent manner so that i can re-evaluate my own beliefs; but i'm starting to doubt that they exist and it's a pity because straw-men don't help anything.
People don't seem really interesting in defending it, probably because they aren't coming at this issue from a place of logic; they're just mad Trump won and are trying to minimize their personal discomfort, and because there isn't really much you can argue from a pro-Biden/Harris position that has hard evidence behind it, we're stuck speculating on what might have happened based on Harris's public statements, which, to put it generously, were all over the place.
The most favorable argument I could see is that Bibi was probably deliberately preventing an agreement from being reached because he knew that it would hurt Biden with his base and Israel overwhelmingly wanted a Trump presidency. Any attempt to play hardball would've won him the ire of AIPAC and could've hurt Harris in eastern PA (hence also "fracking fracking fracking"). Stopping arms shipments might also be interpreted as a signal of weakness by Iran and Yemen and who knows what would happen then.
You could probably identify a lot of issues with this argument and I'm probably not the best one to make it, but from a personal perspective this is the best one I've seen: the Harris campaign was in a double bind and they gambled on trying up the center to convince Netanyahu that Harris was the friendliest face he was going to get and he needed to get a deal done before there were consequences.
those were the only cogent arguments that i could think of as well; but biden's actions in gaza since the election proved them to be wrong.
Kinda tough to beat Occam's razor on "actually the situation is not complicated and Biden's been doing exactly what he wanted the whole time."
not if you have enough propaganda; treats; and captive control over the entire system.
Liberals don't really have beliefs beyond treats addiction.
"You could have had the friendly genocide, but noooo..."
Showing their true face
It's not a face.
Genocide
Lmaoooo
Summary execution
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
