So the choice is between a senile old man with good intentions and a treasonous, syphalitic crook. And the crook has a non zero chance of winning.
Fuck me, what a shit show.
A guy that supports a Genocidal ethno-Fascist regime doesn’t have “good intentions”, not even by the lousy standard of the subset of politicians that climb their way into the position of “leader of a major country” - normal human beings don’t give guns to people purposefully murdering tens of thousands of children, starving 2 million people and targetting journalists and medical personnel.
“Not quite as extremelly bad intentions as the other guy” would be a more correct take.
Trying to spin this as a “good guy vs bad guy” is quite a tribalist take on a plague vs pestilence contest.
But like, you realize how much more manageable pestilence is, right? That’s the whole point. Stuff your both sides shit up your ass
That’s the rational take and I’m sure plenty of people will vote Biden following that rationale.
The top poster’s “pestilence is a good thing” (i.e. Biden is a “good guy”) statement on the other hand is insanelly tribalist and pure fantasy.
Being a Lesser Evil by comparison with an extremelly Evil option is not at all the same as being Good.
The difference that you fail to point out is that one guy, Biden, has been (unsuccessfully so far) trying to rein in Bibi and his genocidal policies, where as Trump has told Bibi to hurry up and finish exterminating Palestine. If you can’t see a clear difference you are not paying attention.
Lots of talk, no action: that’s bullshit Political Propaganda 101 when a politician in power wants to do something which most of his voters are strongly against.
His Administration’s actions are exactly the opposite, from the weapons shipments to Israel going around Congress that included 2000lb bombs to UN Vetos and saying that the ICJ shouldn’t even be evaluating the case against Israel for Genocide (clearly this Administration fears a veredict of “guilty”, which means they do believe Israel is likely comitting what amounts to Genocide under International Law).
The non-sociopath path for America would’ve be “Perfect Neutrality” (no action at all), yet Biden choses actual military and diplomatic support, including condemning anti-Genocide demonstrators as “anti-semitic” and condoning the use of police violence against them all the while in this specific subject lying just as shamelessly as Trump.
So youre saying you think Trump doesn’t support genocide? Or are you saying it doesn’t matter you just wanna bash Biden.
Congress loves genocide, doesn’t matter which president.
Please don’t become the thing you likely abhor (Trumpists and alike) by reacting in a knee jerk fashing to things that “insult” your tribalist morals with a variant of the Fascist take “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”.
It’s perfectly rational and reasonable to think that Biden is not a “guy with good intentions” whilst also thinking that Trump is no better, whilst it’s irrational and unreasonable to think that just because one doesn’t like Person A, one must like Person B.
By any human being standards anybody who supports somebody mass murdering children with weapons is a shit person, hence Biden is a shit person. That doesn’t mean Trump is any less shit.
Even by American President Moral standards (which, sadly are way lower than Normal Person Moral standars, when they should be higher), activelly supporting with weapons a nation committing Genocide is pretty bad, though far from novel.
No matter how you are going to vote, your next president will be a “genocide supporter”.
I’d pick the one that’s a bit less enthusiastic about it.
No matter how you are going to vote, your next president will be a “genocide supporter”.
Canvassing my block with this message to really juice the turn out
The point being that trying to pass that specific sandwish as “gourmet” doesn’t make this less of a contest of shit-sandwish vs double-shit-sandwish.
The take of top poster of this thread - that Biden is an “old man with good intentions” - is quite a different and far more tribalist and propagandistic take than your “the one that’s a bit less enthusiastic genocide supporter”.
Your take is perfectly reasonable, whilst the original take is, as the previous poster pointed out, complete total bollocks for anybody but a complete total sociopath (who would be ok with mass murder) or ultra-tribalist numpty (who is ok with whatever their tribe’s leader supports, no matter how inhumane).
