Thanks - I don’t really want to pay the memory premium for the pro…

It is still approaching zero, unlike the very much higher risk of being killed with your own gun.

Refusing to vote for a genocide gives the democrats an option - run non-genocidal candidates. Your analysis treats every election as independent event - they are not. The previous election influences the next - being locked out of power for being genocidal sends a message.

Thanks - that’s helpful. What’s your go-to for a linux laptop that has the build quality of Apple?

Oh - yes - sorry - I’m not interested in the AI series. Should have said that.

The danger of a gun FAR outweighs the vanishingly rare outliers where a gun is helpful. There is no question about this. Only fevered gun-fondlers can manage to confuse themselves on this issue. It’s very very clear.

You are seriously making the case that it is utterly unreasonable to ask for a candidate who is against genocide? Lol. You are the un-serious one.

There was no anti-genocide candidate - there was literally no option.

They don’t provide any useful info.

He’s never going to die.

I mean, a little bit of column a, a little bit of column b.

I truly don’t think he is going to die.

I’m not sure. I’d have to look that up.

The national debt.

Nope.

Of course I am not ok with that. I am horrified that the Democrats prefer that to ending the genocide. But I’m not interested in anything anyone who is pro-genocide has to say. We can talk about all of those things when a candidate denounces genocide. Not before.

The democratic party ran a pro-genocide candidate. Yes - they forced me not to vote for them. I exercised the only leverage I had - I showed them that while they support genocide I will not vote for them. Yes - the current president has the same view on the genocide that Harris does. They difference is that because Harris lost, we have a chance at a non-genocidal candidate in 2028. We would not have that if she had won. If Harris had won we would have locked in the genocide for decades. Do I think that it is a shame that the Democrats would rather a Trump win than an end to slaughtering children in the Middle East? Yes of course. Let’s hope they change their mind in 2028.

I’m not ok with it. This is what the Democratic Party chose. They would rather this than effect real change. At least now we have a chance to end the genocide in 2028. If Harris had won we would not even have that.

fair - I agree ;)

Well you didn’t mention the whole issue - choosing the neoliberal ghouls closes off any chance of change. The genocide goes on, things continue getting worse. The only option is to show the democrats that they will not take power again until they run candidates who are for real change. I’m sorry that the democrats would rather have fascism in the US than end the genocide. That’s on them though - not me.