WoodScientist @ WoodScientist @sh.itjust.works

Posts

5

Comments

1,212

Joined

6 mo. ago

I'm trans. I voted for Kamala, but I have zero hate on anyone who didn't due to Gaza.

The Democrat's problem isn't just Gaza. It's what the enabling of a genocide signals and means. If you will enable a literal ethnic cleansing, what won't you do? You've literally already elevated things to full-on Hitlerian levels. If you're willing to do that for political power, there is nothing you won't do.

And as we've seen recently, Democrats have frequently thrown trans people under the bus. Even Kamala didn't even try to refute the endless barrage of anti-trans ads thrown by the Republicans.

When asked if she supported trans care for inmates, do you know what she said? She said, "we'll follow the law." She was defending her past actions as California attorney general to provide trans prisoners gender-affirming healthcare. But when given the perfect opportunity to stand up for trans people everywhere, she said that she only did it because it's what the law required of her.

Someone who actually gave a shit about trans lives would never say something like that. Instead they would say, "of fucking course prisoners get trans healthcare. Trans healthcare is medically-necessary care. It saves lives. To deny someone that care or to force them to detransition is literal torture. We sentence people to prison. We don't sentence them to torture. We give inmates gender-affirming healthcare because to do otherwise is cruel and unusual punishment."

That's how you actually answer that question if you have an ounce of empathy in your soul for trans people or any understanding of the issue at all. If you make trans care some frivolous thing that can be denied to prisoners, then all trans identities are frivolous and undeserving of legal recognition or respect in any context.

And there are far worse Democrats than Kamala. Plenty of centrist Dems are willing to throw trans people under the bus if they can earn cheap political points. It turns out that if you're willing to support a literal genocide, then persecuting a small minority group isn't that big an ask. Once you've committed murder, shoplifting isn't something you think twice about.

What evidence do you have for your claim that things are worse in Gaza under Trump than they were under the Biden/Kamala path?

Note, rhetoric is not evidence. Trump lies all the time. Biden lies all the time. Trump says he would like the US to ethnically cleanse Gaza, but he's taken no actual steps towards that end. And Biden also tried to negotiate resettlement of the Gazans to other countries.

All I'm seeing here are vibe. You see someone who is objectively a bad human being, and you decide that they must be the worst possible person on Earth for every conceivable category. Trump can be far worse domestically than Biden while still being equivalent to him in terms of Palestine.

So again, don't quote me rhetoric. I don't care about Trump's verbal diarrhea. What actual material things can you point to that are different from what Biden was allowing without any resistance? Because I think you're mostly just going on vibes.

To me, this is an unscientific position. What actions on Gaza has the Trump regime taken that are demonstrably worse than what the Biden administration allowed? Are you forming your judgements based on faith or actual critical thought and observation?

Yes, Trump says a lot of things that are worse than those Biden said. But politicians lie all the time. Biden lied about trying to rein in Israel, and Trump so far has blustered a whole lot about mass atrocities he would like to do. But he hasn't actually done those.

Again, forget the rhetoric. Trump is a dancing rage clown and you're getting distracted by by the clown.

What has Trump done, MATERIALLY, in Gaza, that is any worse than what Biden did? Again, not rhetoric, actual real-world actions.

I'm waiting til it becomes normal for individuals to use old school buses as their commuter vehicles. It's the inevitable destination of the car size war.

Depending on the design of its memory, a device with a full drive will literally weigh slightly more or slightly less than one with an empty drive. Charging the battery in all cases causes it to weigh more.

That article lacks some really important context. Kalyn Free, a losing candidate, argued to have the results of the election struck down. But what is the context of this? Why was a combined ballot election held in the first place? Who's choice was it to run the election like that? How long has the DNC been running elections like this? Why was it never challenged before, why is it only when Hogg is involved that this rule was challenged? No one ever had a problem with it until Hogg won.

And most importantly, why is the DNC even entertaining a challenge from a sore loser here? We're not talking about a challenge involving how ballots were counted after the election. We're talking about a question of the fundamental structure of the election. The time to make such challenges is BEFORE the vote takes place. Cancelling election results is such a nuclear option that it should almost never be done.

Katlyn Free assumedly knew that this was going to be a combined-ballot election. She never objected before the vote. She never tried to change it then. It was only after she lost that she chose to challenge it.

This is ridiculous and an insult to everyone's intelligence. The time for this type of challenges is before a vote takes place.

To me, it sounds like Democrats have been running elections like this for years, possibly decades. Yes, there's some old rule on the books that technically prevented it, but no one really gave a damn and they just rolled with it. But as soon as Hogg starts making waves? Then this long-ignored rule is summoned from the grave, conveniently just in time to hurt the party's chief iconoclast.

Yes, it's certainly possible that Hogg's election technically violated some rule. But that doesn't make annulling the election results anything less than a disgraceful and electorally suicidal exercise in corporate Dem control.

In fact, it's possible they've left this rule in place precisely for this situation. How convenient would that be? Make it so every chair and vice chair is violating some minor rule in their election. Ignore those violations for years or decades. Then, if anyone who the DNC establishment doesn't like manages to win an important post? Use that zombie rule to annul their election. In the reelection, apply extraordinary pressure and throw out any pretense of impartiality in order to ensure that the thorn in the side of the DNC establishment is removed from the picture.

This situation effectively gives the DNC establishment the ability to get rid of anyone they don't like. It's classic selective enforcement. Make sure everyone is technically violating some rule, but only enforce the rules against people you disagree with ideologically.

And yes, this means that Kenyatta also will have to run again. But the DNC will bend over backwards to make sure he wins; he will be rewarded handsomely for his participation. They'll pull out all the stops and twist every arm to make sure Hogg loses the revote. But Kenyatta will be allowed to sail through without any such opposition applied.

Democrats are going to lose in 2028. The existing Clintonian/Corporate Dem leadership is 0-3 at running elections against MAGA, the modern Republican party. They managed to eek out a win in 2020 due to Covid, but without Covid, Trump would have easily been reelected in 2020.

DNC leaders do not know how to run a modern presidential campaign. They're a bunch of old corrupt dinosaurs that still think it's 1995. They are utterly incapable of winning nationwide elections. They don't respect their own base. They don't respect people's intelligence. They stick to proven fatally wrong campaign methods like TV-first ad campaigns, pandering to Republicans, and running artificial, robotic, inhuman, inauthentic candidates whose every utterance is dictated by corporate donors and focus groups.

They are going to lose in 2028. They can't change. They don't want to change.

They ran on "we're not Trump" in 2016.

They ran on "we're not Trump" in 2020.

They ran on "we're not Trump" in 2024.

They will run on "we're not Trump" in 2028.

They don't believe in anything. They don't stand for anything. They won't fight for anything. They're only good for one thing and one thing alone - losing.

AOC might have a shot at beating MAGA in 2028, but there is not a snowball's chance in Hell they'll allow her to gain the nomination. They'll rearrange the entire primary schedule to prevent her from being nominated. They'll get a half dozen other nominally progressive candidates to run, dividing the progressive vote, while ensuring there is only one corporate centrist running. They'll manipulate the entire process to ensure that their preferred corporate whore wins the nomination.

Republicans are going to win the 2028 presidential election. And that's making the big assumption that there will be a free and fair election in 2028. But truthfully, even without Republican cheating, Democrats are going to lose in 2028. They will have no one to blame but themselves.

This entire thread was started by a blue MAGAT stirring up shit.

And again. You're blinded by partisanship. You're no different than MAGA worshiping their God king. You see any criticism of your team, and you immediately bring out the pitchforks and start accusing people of supporting Trump.

Trump got elected because "blue no matter who" has lead the Democrats into Hell. Democrats are going to lose again in 2028, because they lack the self-reflection necessary to actually ask why they lost. Any criticism means you support Trump. We have to accept the perfection of the blue team, and any criticism means you want Trump to win.

In reality, those who want to reform the Democratic party want Trump to lose far more than people like yourself. The actions of people like you are precisely why Trump is now in office. You are responsible for Trump. MAGA is going to win again in 2028 because of people like you.

I mean, that was a literally true statement. She sacrificed her chance at the presidency because she cared more about enabling genocide than any other issue. It was what she cared more about than all other things. It was her highest campaign ambition. Everything else was secondary.

The issue on Gaza really wasn't whether one side was better than the other. The Gaza policy of Biden, Kamala, and Trump is completely identical - 100% total support for Netanyahu.

Yes, Trump is a lot ruder about it. He'll openly state he wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza. But Biden pushed for the same damn thing. He was just a lot quieter about it. The Biden administration supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

Anyone who thought Kamala would be better than Trump on Gaza was simply delusional. There was no option other than "100% support for whatever Israel wants" on the ballot in 2024.

Look. History shows that you don't fight authoritarian right wing parties by returning the center-left party to power that enabled the fascists in the first place. It never works. You either have to burn the center-left party to the ground entirely, or reform it so deeply that it has little resemblance to the old order. The Democratic Party right now is fundamentally incapable of stopping Trumpism. It literally cannot win an election against MAGA.

You might as well be put your hopes in the Green Party. Centrist corporate Dems are three-time losers against MAGA. Only covid allowed Biden to win in 2020.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again while expecting something different. You are insane.

I mean, it's true. Biden signed off on the ethnic cleansing plan and tried to facilitate it himself. And, by raw numbers, a lot more Gazans have died under Biden's watch than Trump's.

In practice, the Palestine policy of Biden, Kamala, and Trump is completely identical - 100% support of Netanyahu. No exceptions.

The only reason you think Trump is worse is because of vibes. He's just a lot ruder about it.

Classic whataboutism. Kamala had a choice:

1. Give up genocide.
2. Protect abortion rights.

She chose option 1.

You damn yourself by ignoring what causes Democrats to lose. You also stereotype people and assume they're Russian bots instead of people that actually voted for Kamala, but are tired of seeing Democrats lose. And the knee-jerk rejection of any criticism or call for reform by muppets such as yourself is the primary reason that Democrats keep losing over and over and over. Change is impossible because muppets like yourself just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like nothing is wrong.

No, but unfortunately her desire to keep a genocide going was greater than her desire to protect abortion access.

Ok that's nice generic language. But that still doesn't explain the context here at all.

The physics of it mean you basically have to be constantly launching new satellites to replace the 5 year old ones de orbiting.

I mean...so what if the birds only last 5-7 years? My only real concern is that they're not made with environmentally damaging materials. Let them fall over the South Pacific and be atomized on the way down. It really depends on how cheaply you can launch them. All infrastructure has a finite life span. 5-7 years is lower than most terrestrial infrastructure, but this is all a function of launch costs. If those can be made cheap enough, the concept is perfectly viable.