121

It's quite telling that liberals have to defend Kamala by using hypotheticals (hexbear.net)

submitted 6 days ago by corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net to c/electoralism@hexbear.net

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Arguing with liberals on the internet this morning, and whenever I make a simple more stance that "I refuse to vote for a genocide facilitator" I'm met by nothing but "what if's".

"Ok but what if our choices were XYZ"

"But what if trump does this?"

It doesn't fuckin matter to me, im not casting my vote for either of them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] PKMKII@hexbear.net 26 points 6 days ago

Which is particularly empty this election cycle as we’ve already had one Trump term where he had the house and the senate and a friendly judiciary. If he didn’t do it then, why would he do it now?

[-] nat_turner_overdrive@hexbear.net 20 points 6 days ago

Sure, Trump literally laughed about the stuff he said before getting elected and said he wasn't going to do that, but THIS TIME he's totally serious and will absolutely put diligent effort into accomplishing concrete goals that he definitely came up with himself instead of just eating fish filets and doing rallies to make himself feel better

[-] vegeta1@hexbear.net 9 points 6 days ago

One threat comes from stacking up the supreme court judges in favor of repubs among other things. Now tbh its fuck the dems but it really is odd how much power the supreme court can have and how term limits are a contentious point of discussion.