Both sides ARE bad. The trick is to use critical thinking and realize that one side is “stupid and misguided” bad and the other is “literal nazi, genocide against minorities, and also very stupid” bad.
Both sides are currently supporting genocide right now.
You might want to fix that.
That’s begging the question in the traditional sense of the term in formal logic. First of all you have to establish that it is in fact a genocide. While what the IDF is doing probably counts as war crimes, I have yet to see a convincing case that it’s genocide in a legal sense. We’ll see. I’m more than willing to change my mind in light of new evidence or a stronger argument than I have seen thus far.
From Oxford, the traditional dictionary:
gen·o·cide
noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
What part of that is Israel not doing?
Or we can go with the legal definition from the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide linked from https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The only one in question is the last point, but any single one of those points means it’s a genocide.
Ok so you don’t consider what they are doing genocidal actions.
Forcing people out of their homes, cutting off all electricity, food, and water while having them in a complete barricade and shutting down or extremely limiting aid, while destroying 80% of housing is Genocide.
If you feel the need to try and hide behind obfuscation then you do you but I can call a spade a spade.
Forcing a population off it’s land is legally genocide.
Sometimes but not always. There’s more to it in international law. That said, I realize that in arguing caution before leveling accusations of genocide, I am in the minority in this instance. My take is based on what I’ve read of expert legal opinion on the subject and not on my own evaluation of the IDF’s moral position.
The long and short of it is that there are matters of intent that have to be shown in order to have a case for genocide. Thus far, regardless of how we think about the IDF vis war-crimes, I have yet to see a convincing argument for genocide on a legal basis.
You may say that this is a distinction without a difference, and while I’m sympathetic to that idea, I still think it’s worthwhile to maintain these sharp legal definitions.
deleted by creator
Almost everyone with national level political power do. An open letter from House democrats to the White House urging them to work towards a ceasefire agreement had TWELVE signatures. Out of 212. And one of the 12 even tried to quietly remove her signature from it without the public noticing.
They may not hate Palestine, but they sure as hell don’t care enough about Palestinian lives to not support the fascist Israeli government and its genocide.
Israel has supreme power in the US government.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894/text
Ain’t that the disgusting truth… 😮💨
You make a good point
Well the democratic president just sidestepped congressional reviews to give more tank shells to the Israelis but is struggling to provide Ukraine with materiel and shut down giving them fighter jets.
genocide against minorities
Hyperbole? What are you talking about?
Trans people.
I’m genuinely not sure which side you think is which.
“The son of YOUR president took a single bribe and showed his ding dong on the internet, my president rapes women, lies about his finances, commits fraud and incites an insurrection! See both side are bad!”
Both sides are bad the same way that day-past-expiration milk and arsenic are both yucky
Great way of putting it. Also, your username made me almost spit out my coffee lmao
You probably should spit it out. I heard the creamer was expired.
Such exquisite fartistry!
And some of us just really want fresh healthy food. At least some of us will eat the day old food, but won’t be happy about that being the best choice. But because of polarization and group think, we’re just lumped in with the nazis. The internet is fun.
One side wants a chrisofascist dictatorship, the other wants a corporatocracy. VERY different types of totalitarian governments.
I find it interesting that the hamas Israel conflict has become such a political issue. Support of Israel in general, yeah religiously charged. But Hamas did start the attack and do a ton of fucked up stuff. SO many hostages including Americans. Israel is an oppressive government and from a distance seems systemically racist not just overly defensive. I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
Hamas did start the attack
If you think history started on the 7th of October, maybe.
I just feel like this is a more nuanced issue
Genocide is bad.
I just think it’s worth noting that Hamas does call for the destruction of Israel. You can’t discount one set of lost lives for another. The only real victims here are non-Hamas Palestinians
Hamas calls for a two state solution along 1967 borders.
Not that it matters: genocide is bad, regardless of what the people being genocided believe.
So, two points
-
I don’t understand why you’re going to a website of the USA intelligence apparatus - an apparatus that is currently participating in a genocidal war against Hamas - in order to learn what Hamas calls for. Why not look at what Hamas themselves say?
-
Why are to adopting the default position that they do call for the destruction of isreal and then asking for sources that prove otherwise? Seems like the people making the claim should be able to provide their source, and if they can’t, they should maybe be asking themselves why they believed it in the first place.
Though, again, it’s not really relevant: genocide is bad.
I’m honestly not. I want to learn, especially in times like these where the information warfare is so tough on both sides. These were just the only more academic sources I could find. I’m not saying “I’m right until you prove otherwise” just trying to crowd source research
-
Hunter has done a lot more worse than that. Nice on you picking and choosing his weakness offences.
Hunter isn’t even in a political office! He shouldn’t even be on anyone’s radar. And you sir/madam are part of the problem.
Get off the internet and stop watching Fox News, it has rotted your brain.
It doesn’t matter though, he’s not the president and is not involved in any politicalmatters. Sure, he should be investigated if he did something wrong, but why is that relevant?
Both sides are bad. Yes, one is considerably worse than the other, but that doesn’t make the alternative good, it just makes it better.
Good is relative. And relatively speaking, one is definitely good compared to the other.
It’s not good of its own merit though, it’s only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.
Literally nothing is “good of its own merit”. Because literally nothing is intrinsically “good”.
“Good” is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
Maybe for you that’s the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren’t that. Accepting collateral for example. You can’t be good in my book if you’re doing that, and they both did.
Nerco-ing a bit:
Can you provide me of an example that is objectively good?
Please don’t describe it, simply provide an example.
I don’t think you should state this so definitively in a couple sentences, when philosophers whose job it is to figure this out are still pouring out dissertations on this question.
For practical purposes it has been settled. Maybe there is an objective good, but nobody has agreed on it so all we have is subjectivity.
Okay, let’s go with the word “beneficial” then.
Edit: I thought about it more after responding and the Democratic party does occasionally implement policies that are beneficial to the American people. It’s just difficult to see that sometimes among all of the pandering to corporate interests. So I concede that occasionally the Dems are beneficial for the working class, and almost/always better than the Republicans.
“Good” is a subjective idea
one is definitely good compared to the other.
K
Both are consistent within the confines of the definition.
I’m making assumptions here, but it sounds like you’re sarcastically pointing out contradiction.
But there is no contradiction here. “Good” is subjective, and when they subjectively compare the two then one is much better, subjectively
Both are bad though one is worse but both are shit
Removed by mod
Propagandistic bullshit.
Saying you can’t say “both sides suck” means we’re stuck with only two and must pick one.
Two is not the only option.
But it’s difficult to mobilize the bread eaters as they watch the circus.
deleted by creator
sort of
But I do think there is a legitimate ACAB angle here, to slice it by power dynamics instead: All political leaders are bastards.
It’s not just one nation vs another, it’s also civilians vs the political elite. So while I agree it’s wrong to say “both sides are equally to blame”, there are other useful perspectives. I think.
It’s not just one nation vs another, it’s also civilians vs the political elite
Breaking it down further: it is the proletariat vs the dictatorship of capital (the mechanisms by which the capitalist class collectively rules) representing the interests of the capitalist class.
Depends on the specific conflict you’re talking about. Is this about American politics? Palestine? Ukraine?
For example I wouldn’t say that the dictatorship of capital is an especially pertinent aspect of the ruling elite when discussing the Palestine conflict, but it certainly is when discussing American politics.
I mean yeah, colonialism and capitalism are tied together at the hip, and Palestinians resisting the settler state of Israel is pretty directly related to resisting capitalist violence.
Throwing in the standard disclaimer of “my family was affected by the holocaust and I know several anti-zionist israelis who think Israel doesn’t have a right to exist” because some people get really weird about this opinion.
Everything is related to everything, so if course colonialism and by extension capitalism plays a part. And while capitalists are absolutely using both sides for their own gains, I don’t think there driving force of the conflict comes down to capital, but a conflict of non-economic ideologies.
But, it’s a very large conflict with a very long history, so not only am I not an expert, but the nature of the conflict may have many aspects that change over time.
I don’t think there driving force of the conflict comes down to capital, but a conflict of non-economic ideologies.
Well, you’re incorrect. Israel is a settler colonial venture, that is where the conflict comes from, not a difference in religious beliefs.
But, it’s a very large conflict with a very long history, so not only am I not an expert, but the nature of the conflict may have many aspects that change over time.
The region was really peaceful before the colonial project actually, I mean of course the ottoman empire wasn’t great but there wasn’t a lot of notable ethnic conflict in the region.
By “long history” I meant decades not centuries. Still long enough to be multigenerational.
Also there are more ideologies than just religion and economics, and conflict can be over a combination of them. Just because one party is colonial, doesn’t mean that all conflicts are necessarily going to be primarily over capital. That will of course be a part, but it’s also not like one day all the Jews in Europe were like “let’s go kick out all the people from this area because lolz”.
I’m trying to avoid talking about my personal beliefs here, but I’m definitely not of the opinion that both sides are equally bad.
I absolutely agree that colonialism is a huge (biggest?) factor though, and that goes all the way back to when European powers chose the land and kicked out the native people.
For me at least, it’s more of “conservatives are crazy, conspiracy-led, bigots but liberals are annoying.” and this of course only applies to the most outspoken of both sides.
I know plenty of people who vote republican, that are decent people (not antivax, not racist, not homophobic), but are either religious or gun nuts. Hell, I have a coworker that agrees with 95% of democratic policies but will never vote for them because they’ll “take his guns.” Do I think they’re dumb, sure. Do I think they’re evil, no?
Liberals I see like vegans. The core messaging is right, but the preachier you get, the more people are going to dislike you, even if they agree with you on principle. Even though I’ve voted democrat in every election, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes when someone told me I should stop using the word “marijuana” because it’s racist.
I don’t really want to hang out with qanon, racist types or people where I have to be careful of saying “mailman” instead of “mail carrier”. Obviously if I had to choose, it’d be the latter, but I don’t have to choose because 80% of people aren’t that politically motivated every second of their day.
I think the amount of annoying anal liberals such as that is overblown. And whenever I do see that, I see other leftists calling their shit out.
What’s really “both sides” is the fact that Democrats don’t do enough when they have the chances too, because really the majority opinion of the Democrats is way farther right then people in the US like to admit.
Tbf my way of thinking is probably based off my environment. I live in a liberal area but work in a conservative work environment, so all the conservatives I know don’t have Trump flags, stickers, spout antivax shit, etc. but all the liberals I know feel more empowered.
But as far as the political parties themselves go, I agree. Neither side is doing anything to address the class divide, which would help nearly everyone.
Nothing bugs me more than democrats being called the “extreme left” or wtf ever. They’re center right, full stop.
Unpopular opinion, if dems ran an leftist they’d sweep it. They can’t though because it’d be detrimental to everything they actually care about. Bernie swept that primary year but we all knew they’d never run him.
The Dems have run relative leftists in the past: Bernie Sanders was on the primary ballot in 2020 … and lost.
If you want to blame anyone: look at our fellow “voters”. Asking my under-30 coworkers if they voted in the primary and/or the general election was depressing as fuck.
“The Dems”, meaning the DNC, didn’t run Sanders, they did everything they could to push him out of the race. Sanders ran Sanders.
I have a coworker that agrees with 95% of democratic policies but will never vote for them because they’ll “take his guns.”
Did he not hear trump say he likes to take the guns first and worry about the law later? Did he not hear trump say China was too soft in Tiananmen Square?
The Democrats are coming for the guns… but so is trump.
You’re giving these guys too much credit. They don’t follow the news or read anything, ever. This is the same coworker who, when a hasidic Jewish person walked into our shop, said “I thought Amish couldn’t work with electricity” and was 100% genuine.
Your absolutely right. Trump gets a pretty failing grade on 2A rights and from a general libertarian measure, and shouldn’t even be run on republican tickets. As someone who wants more Democrat aligned things like universal healthcare, UBI, police reform, and tax reform, I want those things from a libertarian framestate where those things are the most effective way for the federal government to provide for the common good with the least amount of bureaucracy and government intrusion into citizen’s lives. This means I hold all of my constitutional rights in high regard, the 2nd among them.
I hate having my options being a “choose which rights you least want to lose” adventure game. Since taking the guns is a Democrat plank compared to at least lip service in support at the Republican party level, you get shills like Trump getting the pro gun vote cause he was quiet about it for long enough. Living in the flyovers, I have been voting for my not-anto-gun Democrat at the state level, but I wish i had those options at the House/Senate and Presidental levels too because without RCV my third party votes are basically protest votes. Further off topic, I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.
I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.
They’re all corporatists. They state a couple of libertarian ideals that are in no way reflected in their voting history, and then they go hard for the GOP agenda. I guess that’s a good strategy, since most libertarians in the United States seem to actually be Republicans. It is really frustrating being someone who doesn’t fully align with either party, and having no other options.
What alternative is there to getting preachier? I don’t get in people’s faces, but I understand why people do it. For years, they’ve lightly suggested perhaps making things not terrible, and it’s let the far right get away with heinous shit.
Depends on context. If someone is saying “wow I hate all gays and hope they’re put in extermination camps” then sure I’d speak up and tell them they’re a piece of shit. If someone says “I think gays should have equal rights but personally I think it’s wrong” then I’d shrug it off. I think there’s a line between outright hatred and ignorance/cultural/religious-norms that people ignore too much. Qanon type people are too far gone, but the others I think could change, and immediately shutting them down as racists or homophobes doesn’t help sway them.
What’s the response if someone is making statements like “I think it’s important for everyone to get in politics. For instance, I have listened to Mr. Dobadian many times and think he’s an excellent candidate.” and the first search result for this fictitious person is a speech where he declares; “ALL PEOPLE WITH BROWN EYES NEED TO DROWN IN MUD WATER.”?
Shut down the latter person immediately as racist. But what about the first - the person advocating them? What’s the right way of disrupting their beliefs without “belittling” them?
“Hey, I listened to that Mr. Dobadian and he sounds crazy. I think you should be careful about listening to him.”
“I get that it sounds different for someone indoctrinated by media, but I do think you should give him a chance.”
“No, I mean, he literally said that schoolchildren needed to be blown up.”
“I don’t see value in disingenuously misrepresenting my candidate. I think you’re drawing your own extreme conclusions.”
“Okay, you know what, screw you, you’re just another racist.”
“Wow! Immediate shutdown much? Your kind are so intolerant!”Or, you could ignore these “secondary echos” of the extremist crazies - which is what lead to people in extremist positions spreading their message and getting elected.
So, which is it? Do you interface with them, and make your beliefs known, or not? Keep in mind, you literally won’t have all the time in the world to dismantle the lack of logic behind every one of them.
I mean, this made up person definitely sounds difficult to deal with. But this is getting into qanon territory basically, and I don’t think the vast majority of conservatives are like that. Plus I believe you can have open discussions and say “I disagree with that entirely” without adding “and you’re a bigot” at the end. It’s also easier in real life to tell if someone is genuinely hateful or their heart is in the right place but they’re a bit of a moron.
My whole gripe with overly-progressives is that they’ll completely write someone off as evil for not being progressive enough. It seems you’re assuming I’d never speak up against genuine racism, when originally my point was "it’s annoying when people tell you saying ‘marijuana’ or ‘mailman’ is racist and transphobic.
Plus I believe you can have open discussions and say “I disagree with that entirely” without adding “and you’re a bigot” at the end.
Man, you’d think so. Wouldn’t ya? But I haven’t heard that type of discourse in a long time. I know people who accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with literally every point they make of being bigots. Just today I was talking with a friend who accused a person with a blended family of being a racist. I see the same thing every single day online. Go find some 10 year old Reddit posts about politics and read the comments, the tone and the communication is completely different than it is now. It’s getting pretty bad out there.
but they’re a bit of a moron.
Wow! Hateful, much?
I’m kidding there, but maybe you see my point. Just like myself, you’ve set only a small set of options. Either people are evil, or they’re stupid, and no one likes being called either. It’s not plausible to completely avoid either label.
The point about marijuana is unfortunately lost on me. If it’s a reference to some extremist position, I’m afraid I don’t necessarily follow.
Both sides have always been bad?
Has always been
Can’t we start a ‘We all suck’ movement. There are shitty people of all races, genders, ethnicities, religions, or whatever. Once we all embrace that we can all evolve and work against them.
Good luck, when people have a literal moral superiority complex most of their lives.
This is an ancient opinion. People have been complaining about America’s two party system for literal centuries.
I thought this was about Israel doing a genocide because people (especially Israeli people) can’t separate Hamas from Palestine.
But everyone seems to be taking it as a commentary on the two party system despite only one of these things being new to this year?
The ideological signifying here, though, is squarely situated within the language of American politics. All Lives Matter was a reactionary counter to Black Lives Matter, a distinctly American political movement. Similarly, “both sides suck” is something which has been repeated ad nauseam about American politics. As such, the meme suggests itself that it’s about American politics. At least that’s how I’m reading it. If the OP meant it to be about Israel and Palestine, I think they could have framed it better.
Also, the guy in the meme is a… checks notes… Canadian that goes around debating freshmen at American college campuses.
I prefer to refer to him as “failed comedian Stephen Crowder.”
‘Successful abuser’ works as well.
Palestine itself is a two party system. Hamas vs Fatah, the former controls the Gaza Strip, the latter controls the West Bank (specifically the areas not occupied by Israel)
George Washington warned Americans about the dangers of a two party system. That’s how far back it goes.
Both sides are bad, but one is absolutely evil.
I get why people want to choose the smaller evil but sometimes it’s necessary to point out all evils and head towards a stateless society.
But maybe that’s the difference between “both sides bad” and “two sides bad”
You’re not wrong that we should be able to critique everyone in government, but that’s not what people are taking issue with so it’s not really the problem. You’re kind of omitting the second half. “Both sides are the same, so it doesn’t make a difference what I do/I’ll just keep voting the way I have/I won’t vote because it doesn’t matter.”
I just don’t understand how “both sides are the same” could possibly hold any water after Roe was repealed. That’s evidence enough to the contrary, but people are far more concerned with sounding like they are “above the fray” and being perceived as big brain skeptics (even if they are uninformed on the issues) so they repeat it anyway. That or they are still voting MAGA and want to create a false equivalency.
- The meme doesn’t show that second half, 2. I show sympathy with that viewpoint in my first comment. Support the lesser evil but still call it an evil.
Yes I got what you were saying, but the problem is it’s obfuscating the issue. You are claiming that people who reject “both sides“ are rejecting critiques of the party they support. I am saying that is not true and it’s not even the core issue at hand - which this meme is directed at, mind you.
“Both sides aren’t the same” isn’t “I’m with the good guys.” It’s “the two parties are not doing the same things so stop pretending they are.” See: Roe.
I’m not too much into American politics so I guess I didn’t get the context
deleted by creator
It comes down to this, I know Biden is supporting killing innocent children in Palestine.
We can roll back policies that dumb fucker trump might try because people will still be alive.
We might need another trump presidency to show people that they need to do more than support genocide supporting candidates.
Maybe if it gets bad enough the rest of you will join us in not accepting shitty candidates as good enough.
They say you get less radical as you get older, but the older I get, the more I think it’s time to let the system burn and try again.
I’m sorry but “Trump will shake things up and get us to do something” is an absurd take and doesn’t give us the right to unleash what we know will happen to marginalized groups in this country. Especially when bringing him on isn’t going to stop what is going on in Israel and Palestine. If anything, it will make things worse.
Unless you think Trump is going to help innocents in Palestine, frankly, the argument doesn’t hold any water. And if you do believe that, well… I’m not really sure what to say.
Oh, it’s not something I am hoping for, just the potential of a silver lining.
I don’t think trump will help anyone.
What I do see is so many people who are worried about people’s rights, and then continue supporting someone who doesn’t support an innocent persons right to live.
It makes it really hard for me to feel for someone who is worried about not being able to dress or be called by the pronoun that the feel matches their gender, none of which is throwing trans/ace/ other minority under the bus.
I use it as an example to point out the hypocrisy.
I am sure it is horrible to people who have to deal with that, but being killed is irreversible.
I know that trans people are more likely to commit suicide and all that, just using this as a parallel.
If we are this worried about the potential harms created by a trump presidency, shouldn’t we hold Biden to a higher standard?
I’m sure this will rub people the wrong way so please feel free to ask for clarification if you actually want to have a discussion about the topic.
Just because I voted for Biden does not mean I don’t care about an innocent person’s - or any person’s for that matter - right to live. That is a cruel accusation to levy at someone.
You’re acting like we all have a concrete say in every issue of domestic and foreign policy. The reality is we all have a very small piece of the puzzle that allows us to move the needle in small ways. It’s glacial and frustrating and kind of the point, for better or for worse. The problem with your comment is you are equating voting against Trump, i.e. voting for the Democrats, with not caring about innocent people dying abroad. I think I don’t need to explain to you why that’s not really a fair take, anymore than I can say you hate the planet and want it to burn for ever getting on an airplane or in a car.
You could stand with me and say no to Biden and make them run a better candidate, you are choosing to allow it by not standing against, or at least by not supporting the standard he has laid.
I did not vote for Biden in the primary last time and I will not be voting for him in the primary this time. Do not presume to know how I am going to vote. We are clearly talking about the general election, however, and it is safe to assume it will be Biden vs. Trump at this stage.
2023 centrism in a nutshell. “I don’t like Biden so I vote to give Trump the dictatorship he so craves backed by the scotus he rigged his way into so we’ll never have a choice again”
You don’t understand basic game theory.
I don’t understand how “both sides are the same” could possibly hold any water after roe was appealed.
Well it’s a good thing the electorate voted largely democratic after Trump so that could get fixed!
To all the people who want to vote third party or withhold their vote, please tell me, when had that ever effected change?
This idea that if you hold your vote or vote 3rd party you’re gonna teach the establishment a lesson is laughable. No, the system will go on without you and you’ll just have even less of a voice/decision in the direction of our country.
There is a reason certain people work so hard to tell you your vote doesn’t matter. You’re all falling for it.
Edit: If you don’t like the candidates you have to choose from then go out and vote in the primaries because there’s about a 90% chance you’re not doing that.
1854, with the generous assumption that the threat of party replacement hasn’t influenced policy positions whatsoever.
So in today’s elections, one might point to Democrats who are increasingly opposed to FPTP.
If all the people who are defensive voting decided to stop doing that, our current leading parties would not be #1 &2. Your presumption that we even consider your candidate is laughable. And you are not making a convincing argument to change my mind, at best you are triggering clapter in the people who agree with you, so I hope your motive is to actually just keep defensive voters in their place.
Plus you already believe going against society’s establishment is worth doing, or why are you on lemmy?
Can’t we just vote in someone completely new for once.
We actually did that recently. His name was Donald Trump.
Completely new… seen partying with the existing cabal in 1990’s and also affiliated with the sex island pedophile ring that nobody ever got in trouble for.
Phew man what a savior of the country.
After we get rid of First Past the Post voting.
Ranked Choice Voting baby! It’ll never fucking happen because it would work.
No.
The way the US democracy works, attempting this would be too dangerous i.e. either all your fellow voters agree with you or you lose. How sure are you about winning this?
- Not a democracy… It’s a constitutional federal republic. There’s a difference.
- If I vote like everyone else then there’s no point in voting at all, nothing will ever change either way.
- It’s not about being sure, it’s about not voting for the same people who we know are corrupt or incompetent.
I just want a different political party to get on the ballet at least once, at this point I don’t even care which one. I’m just sick and tired of this bullshit.
A federal republic is a type of democracy. Often those that make this hard distinction are thinking republic vs direct democracy, which while accurate doesn’t capture the democracy most people are referring to when they say the US is a democracy. They mean the US is a modern liberal democracy, which it is, and has the constitutional federal republic style of government. I point this out not to nitpick, but because the right has used the argument that the US isn’t a democracy to justify eroding our rights.
Help get rid of First Past the Post voting, and your dream might become closer to a reality.
Thing is, you need to be able to compromise somewhat, when it comes to politics. And many aren’t ready for that.
I’ll gladly compromise as long as it means there’s more choices in the future.
This shit is like being vender locked where the only choice is between 2 really shit monopolies.
deleted by creator
If you so easily dismiss democracy you can easily dismiss the constitution also. Soon there will be no republic either.
