Epstein was just as tight compadres with Bill Clinton.

"Both sides" its the same side dumbass.

Nuance my ass. Nuance in politics when mentioned by fool like you is akin to people screaming "let people enjoy things!" when someone dares say their Marvel slop sucks.
You rigidly support the democrats no matter what and you screech at any critique, no matter how correct. Yeah, seems real nuanced.

Nuance isn't just when you support genocide, but feel kinda bad about it. Nuance definitely isn't when you reduce the modern capitalist oligarchy into a binary, with no other options. Real nuance is a discussion of abstaining from voting vs. Voting third party.

Not wanting to commit genocide is a pretty moderate position, sure.

You have to vote for them because another guy would crush the child even more.

Kamala was DA and vice president, among a bunch of other stuff. Newsom is governor of California. What point is it you think youre making?
I can say with certainty more people would be hurt under newsom '28 than the current Trump regime, because Newsom would, at best, just keep this shit trucking, but people like you wouldnt care, since a democrat was in charge. Like how none of you gave a shit about Gaza or police violence or suppression of protesters or breaking strikes or [list continues] under Biden

There's plenty of high-ranking, influential, democrats that could be as influential as Kamala, why are you acting like Biden '20 and Kamala '24 was some fluke? And why are you singling out Netanyahu? Its not just these three people, its quite obviously the whole structure.

Its pretty affirming to see all the people bemoaning the loss of USAID, only to, at best, make a vague gesture towards "some accussations" of wrongdoing. Just constantly showing they asses.

Neat! Or whatever, I couldnt really give a fuck what you believe or your reaction is or whatever. I dont live in the fantasy-land you construct in order to avoid engaging with basic concepts, I live in the world where you dont vote "for or against policies" you vote for a party or a politician and that group or person uses the vote as a point of support for their policies. I think im going to end my interaction with this discussion here, because there's nothing to gain from it at this point, its pretty clear you just want to play make-pretend.

Do you people pretend to be dense on purpose or something? Why do you insist on spending so much energy on constructing a simulacra of what those that disagree with you believe, instead of just engaging with their beliefs?
The practical effects of voting for a warmonger is legitimising a warmonger. The practical effects of voting for someone else is legitimising someone else.

Yeah, Kamala, the candidate who had the entire DNC apparatus working all the tricks of the trade in order for her to get the nomination, that one. What makes you think the next candidate won't also be a ghoul?

Sweet. Ableism. Funny how you types resort to it so easily.

Behaving like there is some huge difference between them is what is "head in the sand crazy." The reasons for this observation have been listed throughout this thread, yet oddly enough none of you people manage to engage with any of the many comments giving explicit examples, nor do you manage to engage with any of the comments detailing the worldview. Which is odd. Its almost like you're just here to argue and dont actually care about this at all.
Or maybe you just can't handle investigating your own ideology or the faulty notions you hold.

Weird how none of the bluemaga people decided to engage with this comment. Surely their ideological framework, to which they cling so rigidly, is based on a sound understanding of history and they have an adequate response to this basic listing of events occurring under democrat leadership.
Then again this is the most important election and it was probably the parla- palar- parmesanian that made them do it.