Don’t worry, voters will definitely hand both houses to the Republicans in 2026 if she’s elected and they’ll take their orders directly from Trump.
Because that’s what always happens.
I just hope Trump is dead by 2026.
There could always be some other MAGA asshole to fill the void, but the dissolution of Trump’s cult of personality would be a crippling blow.
There’s always an asshole. Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump. And our electoral system and goldfish-memory population will continually put them into power.
Newt, Mitch and the others only have their local GOP cult, they don’t have the national cult that the orange turd does.
Okay, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones & The Turds.
There will always be an asshole. That’s the entire reason we even have government in the first place.
It’s the money, not the assholes.
Peter Theil, Leonard Leo and Citizans United need to be stopped. The mega churches would be my next concern, since they breed the moron class that elects the assholes.
But money in politics is still the problem, and media will be superfucked if we remove it, so they won’t talk about it.
Don’t blame “the population”, if everybody had exactly the same starting conditions, they’d end up the same. I’m autistic and generally - from experience with people - think that every popular thing is crap and every popular idea is crap, and the more hated something is, the more wisdom may be in it.
But. The population generally has the same kind of memory as you. There are a lot of traps and distractions, they fall for some, you fall for some others. There’s no need to blame the victim.
They’re working on JD Vance to fill the void.
Maybe if that void is the space between the couch cushions.
That’s not what happened in 2022, at least not quite. Don’t underestimate Trump’s ability to insert himself and mess up whatever easy wins the GOP would otherwise have.
It didn’t happen to FDR.
Yeah but he didn’t integrate the population racially so he got to keep power.
she could be a great president if she issues an arms embargo against Israel
So you’re saying you’re still voting for her because you’re not a literal Nazi, right? Right?
Ham sandwich. It’s right there
deleted by creator
Well she doesnt not do Nazi type things…
are you actually stupid 😭
deleted by creator
Too god damn true. That’s mainly why I voted for Harris on my main-in ballot. She’s not Trump, that’s the primary reason.
Yep. She’s not my ideal candidate, but she is better in every single way when compared to Trump.
Since it’s easier to break things than to maintain, fix, or create, the choice is obvious.
This is not obvious. There’s appropriate time for everything, breaking things involved. Any meaningful action you take is destructive. Ouroboros is a thing.
Just right now picking Trump wouldn’t break what should be broken. Just be a gift to a lot of mass murderers around the world for 4 more years and maybe more.
I mean, that’s a good looking sandwich
You and I have very different ideas of what a good sandwich looks like. I’d still vote for it though.
maybe that’s mortadella that’s cut way too thick? I dunno. I’m with you. It looks more like turkey than ham to me. Not my sammich.
Absent of any anti-Trump arguments, I’d like to hear the case for Kamala being a truly great President. A few policy positions she, in particular, is notable for?
deleted by creator
The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat.
Not even balanced - Clinton produced a surplus during his last couple of years in office. Had we continued on that path, we would now be debt-free as a nation, instead of in debt to the tune of $35 fucking trillion (equivalent to a full seven years of tax revenues).
what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard
See, that’s what I’m not thrilled about.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
You’re only arguing the “I’d vote for a ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power” side. You don’t need to argue that part, we all know this, and it isn’t what the person you’re replying to was asking.
No one even said anything about Jill Stein here, bringing her up now feels like a very bad faith argument.
deleted by creator
Yep. I agree with you 100% and is why I’ve tried to stop engaging regarding politics on this site. It just seems like 99% of the posters are posting in bad faith, or insane levels of naivety. Perfection the enemy of good personified.
Nah, it’s just a few legitimately bad actors and a few naive folks. Most people here are pretty reasonable but it’s hard to remember the guy dressed normally that walked past you three days ago while you will always remember the dude in the thong onesie holding a sign saying the great old ones are coming back any day to battle the frost giants.
90% of my comment was to explicitly say what Democrats do
To which their response was “yeah, that’s not exciting, we’ve seen it before”, they addressed it. You didn’t need to write out all of those words when you’d already summed it up well with “basic democrat”
Being a Democrat does not make you an inherently great president, it makes you the not-shit option
So, when asked for an argument that’s void of any anti-trump points you basically said “they’re Democrats. Plus they’re not trump!”, which isn’t an answer and includes the thing they said not to
Why stop there? Throw in some “both sides” stuff too.
Lol, “any criticism of the Democrats is right wing infiltration” is some shit taking for sure
It might not be right wing infiltration, but it sure is right wing talking points, whoever it’s coming from.
Sah yes, gotta shut down any criticism of glorious leader!
Fucking shit take
That’s not a denial, it’s just name calling.
I didn’t feel the need to go over the DNC point-by-point. I said the Dem agenda is what I’m not thrilled about.
Do I have to go point-by-point before I can ask why you felt the need to bring up the Republicans and even Jill Stein at all when it’s clear that wasn’t the question being asked? We all know they’re bad, but the fact that it seems like the only way to talk about the DNC is to keep reminding us that they’re not the other guys, you were explicitly asked to actually say what’s good about Kamala without doing that.
Asks for good points about Kamala Harris without mentioning any bad points about republicans. Gets lots of substantial points and a throwaway about Stein. Ignores all the points about democrats and greys very cross about mentioning Stein once at the end.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12851475
What conclusions am I to draw? You just hate it when other people don’t follow the letter of your laws,even the ones you didn’t say out loud? That you hate discussing bad points about Kamala’s opponents? That people can tell you benefits of voting for Kamala as much as they like, you’ll never hear any of it and you’ll still assert that no one can come up with any?
I didn’t ignore what you said, I responded by saying I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda. It’s all too little too slowly, without addressing underlying structural issues with capitalism. Did you need me to quote each line individually in order to say that?
What I don’t like is that even when the question is explicitly “Regardless of how bad the other side is, what’s actually good about the DNC?” you are incapable of not pivoting that question back to talking about how bad the other guys are. We know, but that wasn’t the question.
What I don’t like is that I can’t even say “I’m not thrilled about the DNC agenda” without having all kinds of accusations hurled in my face.
Correction, you can’t say “tell me good things” and ignore all the good things, then complain that there were no good things, without being called out on it.
Start with what makes a good president? Obviously there’s the issues and all that which people focus on, but that’s subject to debate. Objectively, some qualities are definitely good, like being good at both urgent and non-urgent decision making, good at managing/organizing/handling chaos, capable of outsmarting adversaries, being a unifying force rather than a divisive one. Just to name a few. So let’s look at those:
- Decision-making: She’s relatively young compared to recent presidents, definitely a bit more in touch with modern reality and less tied to the old ways of doing politics. She’s faced a tough choice with her running mate, and while Walz has been criticized by some, given the short timeframe it’s clear she at least didn’t fuck it up. Her debate prep clearly succeeded, and she’s avoided any scandals despite clearly Republicans trying very hard to find them. All of these show a record of decent to good decisions.
- Managing, etc Obviously her campaign started in the midst of chaos, and there were a lot of fears regarding that transition. And it went probably better than anyone expected, with everyone quickly gaining confidence in her.
- Outsmarting adversaries She did a better job at this in the debate than any candidate in my memory.
- Unifying force Again I’ll refer to her getting everyone behind her after Biden dropped, while also keeping Biden’s support. Don’t underestimate how unlikely that seemed before it happened.
I’ll avoid comparing Trump who is obviously severely deficient in all of these respects. But I could go further and say she obviously compares favorably to Biden too, and compared to Obama, I’d give her an edge on outsmarting adversaries and managing, and Obama probably gets the edge on the other 2. But we’ll see.
She used to be a prosecutor. That means she can see things from both sides and look at things objectively and not make rash decisions. It’s a good quality for a president.
I mean My Only Hope from her being a prosecutor is that she actually prosecutes crimes, I’m not very hopeful of that especially with her seemingly not wanting to bring back Lena Khan, but I can dream. However normally being a prosecutor would disqualify you for me, good people don’t become prosecutors.
Did she say something about not bringing back Lina Khan? The only thing I saw was that Mark Cuban said he didn’t like her (which is just another plus in my mind. If the billionaires are scared of you, you’re doing something right), and whoever printed the article decided to call him a “Harris Surrogate.”
Which I’m pretty sure is just flat out untrue. He supports her, and maybe he was even organizing for her. But “surrogate” means he speaks for her, and as far as I understand it, he absolutely does not
Good people do become prosecutors. Why? Because they don’t want to see bad people on the street. Sometimes you’ll wind up having to fight against someone innocent, but that doesn’t necessarily make someone bad. You have to prove without a doubt that that person didn’t do it. It’s essentially debating whether they did it or not. That doesn’t make a prosecutor bad.
Except for embracing firearms, I dont think she has a few poicy positions for anyone to evaluate. She just adopts whatever Bidens policies were. She did the same thing when she was running for president before Biden tapped her for VP. Couldnt formulate a policy position to save her life.
She will most likely not be a great president, but could be a good one. If Biden wasn’t so poor on the Middle East, he would have been a great one, from a policy perspective.
Biden never was going to be a great president, lacking a a majority in both houses means you burn up too much political capital to get anything done that doesn’t already have broad bipartisan support. And with how divided politics is today compared to any point in history where we had a great president, there is no such thing as bipartisan today.
Yeah, passing the new deal in the McCarthy era was cake.
… The new deal was passed 10 years before the McCarthy era. FDR was dead before McCarthy even started his red scare.
Do you live in an alternate timeline?
I was being over broad. The first red scare was after WW1 and was a prominent feature of Republican politics from that point onwards. If you look into the resistance to the new deal, it was the same red scare nonsense that McCarthy rode as a wave.
Did the Trump era start in 2016, or did he simply usurp a rising fascist current in American society? I personally think it’s more of the latter than the former. Likewise with McCarthy, but it’s fair that I was corrected.
I’m fine with how Afghanistan went. The military would have dragged it out for another 10 years. I’d much rather have a suboptimal quick withdrawal.
Nobody’s arguing it was short-term better for the US. It abandoned to the wolves all of the people who worked with it in Afghanistan, though. And did that abruptly. Betrayals tend to have long-term consequences. Those who think they’ve seen a few betrayals go well without those, just have blind spots.
Yeah, actually. I agree that Biden handled the Afghanistan situation as well as anyone could. I guess I’d forgotten that with all of the things happening now.
Edit:
Did anyone die? A quick Google search shows yes. That’s horrible. I’ve read several news sources on it but I’m wondering if you’ve found out the facts about that bombing? It’s more digging than I have the time for right now.
And supported labor better.
And supported labor
better.
Were there a normal option available to vote for, she’d be worse. But she’s better than Trump because Trump is just an acceleration of the ongoing trash show, while she is said show going on as planned - she’s the candidate from the folks who planned it, as in “establishment” and “big financial interest”.
Maybe she’s just waiting for the election to be over before she disbands AIPAC and cuts ties with natenyahu?
And then personally arrest Trump and abolish the Electoral College while smoking a fat blunt.
“Objectively” is such a fun way to describe what will always be a divisive position of power. Was any one president considered objectively good?
Well, Al Gore was voted president, and he didn’t make any objectionable decisions while George Bush was living in his house and working in his office.
I do wonder what the world would look like if Al Gore had been president.
You can thank Roger Stone for that, if you’d forgotten or if you were too young at the time to care or realize wtf was going on.
I was 15 in 2000…I fell into the latter camp.
He was one of the organizers of the Brooks Brothers Riot, which accomplished its goal of shutting down the Florida recount.
Obviously, since this didn’t happen yet, Trump didn’t know about this when Stone compelled him to run in the reform party that year (when he dropped out in February). The two of them worked together for a long time prior, Stone was a lobbyist for him.
But I’m sure Trump knew about that when Stone became a campaign consultant in 2016. That was also when he got involved with the person selling Hillary’s “derogatory financial info”, as the Mueller investigation revealed.
Didn’t matter tho. Trump commuted his sentence and pardoned him.
After all, the election was coming up. Stone already helped Bush secure a seat in 2000, and dug up dirt that cost Hillary the election. Dirt that wasn’t even really that dirty, just needed good spin.
And of course, he was instrumental in planning J6.
Dude is literally the most treacherous of treasonists. Comic book levels of villainy. No doubt he’s got something queued up to “ensure” a Republican “win” this year. He was primarily responsible for the last two Republican “wins” and really wants that third.
Grant’s administration was deeply imperfect - corruption ran deep - but he eradicated the first KKK. I feel like that’s an objective good, and anyone who disagrees isn’t worth listening to.
Does doing one good thing translate to being “an objectively good president” though? Broken clock and all that.
A president who performed an objective good, if you like
George S. Washington
The slaver?
george samuel washington was so good
FDR because one can be wrong about objective things
FDR. Fight me about it.
James Garfield.
“Voting for the Lesser Evil is still Evil”
Makes sense.
I throw out all my old uneaten perfectly edible still in the packaging food that hasn’t expired yet instead of donating it to a local food bank because if I can’t give the nutrition-insecure folks a gourmet dinner, why should I even fucking bother?
We’re talking about evil, it’d be you have moldy chicken or moldy potatoes to eat, which is less likely to kill you if you eat it?
No, that’s the same evil… Poison is poison.
Ok, but what if it’s a choice between those moldy potatoes that are poison vs undercooked pork that’ll give you tapeworms like RFK Jr’s brain.
Surely the latter is the “lesser evil”. You get fed today, and maybe your immune system keeps you healthy tomorrow. Still a risky proposition!
But you could also demand that the pork gets cooked longer by adding some progressive policies like not supporting genocide, demilitarizing, and investing in a clean environment. I’d say that’s worth protesting for. Be a Karen, ask to see the manager, and demand your pork is cooked properly.
Except this is an electoral college, meaning you get Harris or Trump, a sub-par meal that will make you sick for a little bit, but you’ll be fine, or trash that is coated in poison and will make you sick for a long time before you puke your guts out, likely not surviving.
And not choosing means someone force feeds you the worse of the two.
Except not.
Harris isn’t a subpar meal that makes you sick for a little bit, but you’re fine in the long run. She is the candidate that will feed us today while kicking the can on bigger problems down the road. She’s the delicious tapeworm pork. She’ll keep the economy and war machine running so Americans can keep leading their comfy lives on top of the world for a few more years before collapse. This prolongs the damage caused by the petroleum state that we call America, which accumulates into massive climate impacts.
Trump is food poisoning that is a lot worse in the short term and for America specifically. Another Trump term is likely to lead to civil war and/or national collapse. America focusing inwards may be better for a world that America has been terrorizing and holding hostage with its massive military. America is funding genocides and producing more oil than any other nation in history. America has spent this century positioning itself as an enemy of habitability. If you realize that your survival threatens the world, shouldn’t you choose the poison for the good of others?
I suppose it all depends on how long we have until a collapse and ensuing paradigm shift under Harris (a short time will encourage me to vote for her) vs how dangerous the senile old man will be before we can overthrow him and build a new country. Harris is promising too much stability for what we need to replace; Trump is promising to be senile and easy to overthrow.
If Harris wants me to vote for her without hesitation, she needs to tell me how she plans to shut down the fossil fuel industry and the evil war machine. Trump is promising to run them stupidly and dangerously, and the ensuing damage may be better than keeping the planet-killing machine running. That’s the horrible decision of this “lesser of two evils” approach. I’d really rather vote to responsibly shut it down, but my options are either live comfortably while it destroys the earth or shove this stick between the spokes and hope that the damage of crashing is less bad than if we keep going.
That said, I already voted for Harris, because that’s where my judgement lands on this question. But it’s a serious question that needs careful consideration from everyone. This is a big and important election. Everyone should think very carefully and weigh the options. This is NOT an easy decision, and anyone who thinks it is has been drinking the kool aid of one side or the other.
In four more years, my judgement may land differently.
That’s why the comparison works.
Except it doesn’t because there’s a clear difference between Chump and Harris
A ham sandwich can be eaten. Eating is good. That’s 1 pt ham sandwich, 0 gop. Ham sandwich does more for Americans than gop.
The rich can also be eaten.
I’m gonna need a bigger smoker.
And forest’s worth of hickory wood.
And that’s cool…
As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don’t yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they’re trying to help trump.
That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.
It’s just completely nonsensical to hear all the “moderates” claim they’d vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.
There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she’d lock this election down.
If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right…
With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.
If it’s not been posted already…
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/
Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his ‘started no wars’ con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.
We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they’d share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.
So we’re left with the second.
Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.
The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
They wouldn’t lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations…
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone’s slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
Just never one who’s political policy matches Dem voters.
Look at current DNC leadership, it’s not people that know how to win elections, it’s just whoever can bring in the most donations.
The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
True. And a cushy consulting job, or a few thousand in bonuses seems like an understandable inventive, if a misanthropic one.
But for those who do the footwork supporting such a system, I just cannot see why. What have the Democrats done to deserve such blind obedience? Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
Today? Yes. Come inauguration day? Absolutely fucking not. If Kamala wins I’ll talk shit, write letters, donate to causes, protest, and cause trouble from the first day she’s in office until the end of primary season 4 years from now. Then I’m back on the train.
Unless we can get rid of FPTP. Then I’m talking shit every day all fucking day long while happily voting for a candidate who agrees with me most instead of the one I disagree with the least.
If Kamala wins I’ll talk shit, write letters, donate to causes, protest, and cause trouble from the first day she’s in office until the end of primary season 4 years from now
Why?
Most people in America want to end sales of arms to Israel, don’t want to be complicit in genocide.
And Harris is abusing her power by ignoring that to satisfy a few wealthy donors by threatening you all with Trump if you don’t let her do what she wants.
The only way to stop abuse of power is to stand up to it. If you let her (or her replacements) just frighten you into submission with bogeymen you might as well give up any hope of progress.
Edit: this started out as a single word question. The diatribe came after my reply.
It’s a reasonable question. Because I don’t think she’ll go far enough. And if she goes further than I think she will, I’ll push her to go further left than that. I’m not nearly as far left as a lot of folks on Lemmy. I probably fall into Social Democrat on a good day. But that puts me further left than most US politics and pretty much all the politics in my home state.
I’m a pragmatist when it comes to elections. She’s good enough to where I don’t think she’ll sponsor hunting parties for LGBTQ+ folks but I don’t think she’ll be trying very fucking hard to get universal healthcare or working with states to try to get rid of FPTP.
Unless your question is why I won’t do it after primary season. That’s because we don’t fight in front of the kids. I’m going to support the furthest left feasible candidate because, again, pragmatic. I’ll shut my fucking mouth, back the least fascist, and start trying to affect change again the second I can without shitting on that candidate during election season. Plus I like to take a break between election day and inauguration day because it’s all so mentally exhausting and I’ll be drinking more than usual for the holidays.
Sorry, I thought you were here asking a reasonable question with my other reply. If I had known you were like this I wouldn’t have bothered. Is that why you replied with a single word then edited it instead of spewing your tripe initially?
If “Israel should finish the job” Trump tickles your butthole, just say so.
Sorry, I thought you were here asking a reasonable question with my other reply. If I had known you were like this I wouldn’t have bothered.
Yep. So when you thought I was going to play the part of the meek little student at their teacher’s knee you were happy to respond, but as soon as it was clear I might actually disagree… Instantly I must be a Trump supporter, because literally the only option you can think of that isn’t agreeing with you entirely is ‘Trump’.
It’s pathetic.
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump,
…
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this.
They always move to the middle in every election chasing “independent” votes that they never get. I see no evidence from history that they “arent idiots”.
This is absolutely correct. I’m sure the 40% of voters who want to keep sending weapons to Israel aren’t even Harris voters. So clearly the Democratic party is only doing it for the love of genocide and it seems obvious that after they finish the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon they’ll shift their focus to genocide of Palestinians and other arabs living in America. This is completely unacceptable to me which is why I voted for Trump.
I thought about voting for a third party but I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
Sooooo… because you can’t be bothered to understand how things work. You voted for someone that suggests that Israel “finish the job.”
That sure showed those pesky libs!
You’re about as bad-faith as it gets. You’re MAGA, through and through. Drop the act that it has anything to do with genocide.
“Koncentration Kamp Kamala”
Listen to yourself. You’re beyond delusional. Seek help.
A lot of my relatives died in concentration camps. Why the hell are you trivializing them?
I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
there are only two possible outcomes of this election
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
Hamala
Do people really put the veggies underneath the cheese and the meat? Have I been sandwiching wrong my whole life?
Same with a burger. Your lettuce should be dry (pat it with a paper towel if you must) and put it as the bottom layer. This creates a moisture barrier that stops your bread/bun from turning into a soggy mess.
On a sandwich, the cheese should be on the other side for the same reason. Keep all the wet stuff from turning your bread into slop.
This person sandwiches…
Absolutely correct on all accounts. These are important laws, and many of us have independently arrived at them due to previous errors in sandwich construction.
Maybe JD Vance turned the camera upside down.
It’s understandable - how else can he get the media to focus on this sandwich problem?
They’re eating the hoagies! They’re eating the patty melts! THEY’RE EATING THE SANDWICHES IN SPRINGFIELD!
The video’s reversed, dummy…
Maybe a club, or a ruben. I don’t know about just plain ham.
What if it came with Dijon mustard?
…… go on
By a waiter with a tan suit.
Lately the American dream has been reduced to someone passing you a jar of grey poupon out of the back seat of their car so I like where you are going with this.
well we already the “Worst President” < that dump inept man!!! so anything is better! Kamala will be AWESOME!
drumpf!!!
As someone who genuinely doesn’t understand American politics too much, wouldn’t Trump be better for the Middle East? I live in Lebanon right now and most people that I talk to say that Trump would be far better than anyone else for the Middle East, considering what he did in his first term. They’ll also back this up with “he’s a business man, and war is bad for business”, but I don’t entirely buy that considering how profitable war is for the US. Could someone put my in the loop?
Trump is a Zionist so he’d probably start backing Israel with more weapons and escalating the current situation with Iran.
I too hate Hezballah, as most do, but issue is that I also live in the same country where they live. I used to feel bad for Americans that had to do active shooter drills. My school just did a “we’re being bombed” drill.
Trump literally said he’d make sure Gaza stops existing.
Although Russian propaganda loves to portray him as being better for the middle east.
