This is neither sustainable for Russia nor does anything but further galvanize Ukrainians against the Russian terrorist invader.

They clearly learned nothing from London stoicism.

Jesus just flooded a Christian camp; it may be a sign Jesus does not approve of Christians in America.*

*poor joke expressing my general frustrations, I confess. Indoctrinated children shouldn't be responsible for the ignorance of their parents or state and federal officials who stupidly gut weather services and deregulate to the point a camp can be built literally on a fucking dry river bed.

I assume embarrassment on the world stage helped move this along given the Olympics?

I had a pledge that I would buy a Union-made American Flag and plant it firmly in my lawn if two things happened (1) Harris was elected President, and (2) Trump served any prison time.

Nationalism fuels fascism, but I think patriotism can be a healthy pride; sort of like how one distinguishes confidence from arrogance.

Ultimately patriotism is a neutral term and is decided upon whether you agree with your national identity in both where your nation is, and where it is heading. I naturally don't agree with either at present, and so I'm not patriotic. Some are patriotic for the wrong reasons. If we get back to our roots, then I will perhaps one day have pride in being an American again.

"but hOw wiLl wE paY fOR iT?"

Besides the real answer being: return on investment,

I think the better question is how can we live like this?

I think the better question is: why does get 20 mansions while there is still 1 homeless child?

Another good question is: did anyone ask how we'd pay for the bombs dropped on Iran, or given to Israel?

The problem is that last one:

The vast majority of Americans (80%) support the U.S. government’s deportation of migrants without permanent legal status who have been convicted of a violent crime.

How far can "violent" and "conviction" be stretched in order to justify wrongful deportations?

Hence your substantive engagement on what I did mention?

I dish back that which has been dished out.

Never claimed this.

Implied.

Never claimed this.

So you are saying Democrats and Harris would've been better?

None of this is about hate, it’s about which policy decisions are better than others.

And Harris had overall better policy decisions, correct?

Again, never claimed.

So you agree Harris had overall better policy decisions, correct?

Everything you’re saying comes across as being less about “how do we improve things” and more “I need someone to be angry at.” I would propose directing that anger at the politicians instead of your fellow voters.

The two notions aren't mutually-exclusive. You see, in order to improve things, fools asserting defeatist false equivalence fallacy rhetoric need to learn from their disastrous mistakes. Because you're the one responsible, that is making you a bit uncomfortable, I suspect.

I would propose making fewer logical fallacies next election cycle.

If I was religious I would definitely think he was the devil quoting scripture.

Compounding deflections now, I see. Was a pretty simple question, really.

If we're going with blind attacks then I think Ivanov has hit the vodka a little too heavy today, maybe?

What do you mean national stage? Because I can think of at least a handful.

I love how you dodged more than half of the issues, knowing you didn't have jack shit. Respectfully, of course.

Sounds like one is complicit in genocide with respect to both climate change and Ukraine.

(by the way: you love mamdani; if they're all the same, why did he run as a Democrat? You should hate him too, right? So I guess they're not all the same and Democrats are, objectively better, is that right?)

So you're condoning genocide and dodging the fact that Democrats were objectively better for the people of Ukraine?

Classic deflection.

Because it's irrelevant. Even entertaining collusion, your argument that we cut out the middleman and hand the keys to the GOP is unquestionably worse in every logical way.

Last I checked, Dems gave more aid to Ukraine. Are you saying you're complicit on the Russian genocide against Ukraine?

You're the reason we have Trump. Absurd.

AOC will probably primary him. Schumer is at something like a 2 decade low in approval while AOC polls much higher state-wide.

Criticism of Dems, specifically false equivalence botherism, was objectively disinfo. We know Israel and Russia have troll farms that supported Republicans, and many people including yourself lapped up that rhetoric. Doesn't matter if you're a US citizen or not. You helped amplify the propaganda. So thanks for that.

Billions in aid to Gaza and West Bank even through 2022 prove the point regardless, but sure: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-usaid-gaza-ceasefire-0a56d5d591c249eb5e44ba29c9adaa3e

You still didn't answer: do you not care about all those issues?

Hahaha bystanders observe the absurdity of this claim. Talk about a non-sequitur.

I'm all for shitting on AIPAC Dems, but all this proves is that right-wing disinfo ops convinced people like you to amplify their bullshit and sway larger swaths of people. So good job parroting right-wing disinfo when you could've done hard work actually telling people what Harris was without question the better candidate on a multitude of issues.

Maybe less drinking right-wing kool-aid and more door-knocking.

Like I said, you willingly threw Ukrainians under the bus in this self-defeating mindset, leaving aside the other issues mentioned..

So just tell me you don't care about:

• Climate Change (and resulting deaths)
• Healthcare
• LGBTQ+ rights (and resulting discrimination)
• Women's bodily autonomy
• Ukraine (and Russia's ongoing genocide in Ukraine; so are bystanders complicit in genocide there?)
• Economic Inequality
• Immigration (and resulting deportations, alligator auschwitz, etc.)

And I'll actually understand a little better!

Also you weren't aware USAID helped Palestinians? Inform yourself! https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106243#%3A~%3Atext=Fast+Facts%2Cfiscal+years+2020+through+2022.

Huge correlation with AIPAC being their top donors, fyi.

Let's pretend they're the same on genocide (they're not, because Harris wouldn't have advocated turning it into a riviera, cut USAID that helped Gazans, or escalated in bombing Iran, leaving aside the fact that Bibi explicitly wanted), but:

In a binary choice election with the inevitable choices being Harris or Trump, one opted to assert both sides / false equivalence Harris being obviously better on:

• Climate Change
• Healthcare
• LGBTQ+ rights
• Women's bodily autonomy
• Ukraine (and Russia's ongoing genocide in Ukraine; so are bystanders complicit in genocide there?)
• Economic Inequality
• Immigration

Instead one enabled victory for the person who was not only worse in 1 genocide but arguably 3 genocides when counting Ukraine and Climate Change.

It logically makes zero sense.

I don't think it comes as much surprise that AIPAC-backed Dems were more likely to continue to blindly support Biden.

You know, the lobbying firm whose bulk of funding comes from Republican origins.

I can see the strategic play of progressives not coming out and calling for Biden to step down because they would've been seen as a scapegoat and Biden may have dug in his heels more if progressives led the charge.