intersectionality is a legal analytic; nothing more, nothing less. it is not a radical stance or a feminism or whatever you are surmising it to be in this very confusing post.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Oglemi
- Start date
- Status
intersectionality is a legal analytic; nothing more, nothing less. it is not a radical stance or a feminism or whatever you are surmising it to be in this very confusing post.
so if I don’t vote for trump, it’s a vote for kamala?
this thread is such a whiplash inducing read because 1/3 the posters don’t believe we live in a democracy and are expressing utter contempt toward the systems that be which are funding genocide; 1/3 of the posters are trying to lambast said ppl into voting; and 1/3 of the people can’t vote because they’re not of age/American
I can't reply to your commentary until I finish the video but this is a very nice rec. thanks for sharing :) I'll see if i can listen to it after work
It's about perspective. If someone who would otherwise in every situation vote for Kamala but doesn't, then it benefits Trump. Kyle Rittenhouse came out and said he wasn't voting for Trump (tho he retracted this statement) which in that case benefits Kamala (even if he doesn't vote for her) more than it does Trump. It's about a certain base moving from one side to another.
No. If there is a fascist on the ballot (Trump), the anti-fascist vote must consolidate around the ONE anti-fascist candidate with the best chance of victory (Harris).
Last edited:
Meanwhile, 100 people including children who were praying, in an already damaged school at dawn this morning, have been killed after Israel bombed it.
Israel has claimed the school was being used as a base of operations for Hamas.
It has been reported that American made 2000lb bombs were used.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...raeli-strike-targeted-school-gaza-2024-08-10/
https://aje.io/x9tkr3?update=3110091
https://news.sky.com/story/dozens-k...ity-palestinian-health-officials-say-13194413
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/10/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-al-tabeen/
Waking up and watching the news right now, the images and video are terrifying.
This is the worst thing I have seen in my life, and I studied both the holocaust and Serebrenica.
I’ve never seen any area of the world decimated and reduced to rubble and ashes in such a short space of time - save Hiroshima, which of course was well before I was born, and had the use of only one bomb.
This is horrific.
Israel has claimed the school was being used as a base of operations for Hamas.
It has been reported that American made 2000lb bombs were used.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...raeli-strike-targeted-school-gaza-2024-08-10/
https://aje.io/x9tkr3?update=3110091
https://news.sky.com/story/dozens-k...ity-palestinian-health-officials-say-13194413
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/10/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-al-tabeen/
Waking up and watching the news right now, the images and video are terrifying.
This is the worst thing I have seen in my life, and I studied both the holocaust and Serebrenica.
I’ve never seen any area of the world decimated and reduced to rubble and ashes in such a short space of time - save Hiroshima, which of course was well before I was born, and had the use of only one bomb.
This is horrific.
National Security Advisor to Kamala Harris repeats evidence-free lies that the IDF was 'targeting Hamas' in order to justify the most recent slaughter. But don't worry, he is 'concerned' about civilian casualties
You can give 1 point to trump by voting for trump
You can give 0.5 points to trump and 0.5 to kamala by not voting
You can give 1 point to kamala by voting for kamala
Aint that hard to figure out how any of these actions will affect the voting outcome mathematically, im sure you couldve figured it out too
Last edited:
Alright, I'm just some dumb kid on the internet, so take my advice with a grain of salt, but:
Vote for your favorite third party candidates
no, they wont win, but Kamala will probably win anyways, and this is a chance to show your support for them. if Kamala sees you vote for a third party that wants to put their foot down on the Israel situation, she will probably do that to get more support.
Again, don't listen to me, listen to someone who knows what they are talking about, but consider it.
Vote for your favorite third party candidates
no, they wont win, but Kamala will probably win anyways, and this is a chance to show your support for them. if Kamala sees you vote for a third party that wants to put their foot down on the Israel situation, she will probably do that to get more support.
Again, don't listen to me, listen to someone who knows what they are talking about, but consider it.
I would do this if I didn't live in a critical swing state that Trump stands a decent chance of winning. If I lived in California, I would vote third party for President and blue down the rest of the ticket.
What point are you trying to make here?
My point was that the obvious, awful, life changing attack on Hiroshima was physically done with one bomb.
In Gaza, more bombs have been dropped on it now than between 1942 and 1943 on Germany. A higher total tonnage than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The point of the comparison is to point out how utterly out of the ordinary and horrific the Israeli assault on Gaza has been - completely disproportionate to 7 October 2023.
Sorry if that offends you, but I wasn’t making light of either situation nor trying to deceive anyone. The fact we can make that comparison is the thing that offends me the most - how in the 21st century this level of civilian infrastructure has been normalised by a single country is not a new normal I want to accept.
And just as a side note, I have been to Hiroshima’s peace park and observed the memorials. Changed my views on nuclear weapons forever. They have to be removed from every country that has them - we have to change planet earth for the better.
Yes, that flies in the face of the MAD/deterrent theory but we have to aim for this. Complete nuclear disarmament. Stop selling weapons around the world. Stop killing people, period.
Yep. Biden is part of the problem. I had high hopes for him in 2020, but he will now always be “genocide Joe” to me and many others around the planet. He singlehandedly had the power to stop all of this madness. And he was willingly complicit in it, because it aligned with his zionism, I’m afraid to say.
Yeah, fair dos. I didn't mean it in any way like that, no offence taken from anything. My post wasn't helpful and was actually worded pretty badly.
No worries at all. It’s a very emotionally charged subject and these things happen. My apologies if I was a bit brusque in my reply!
I believe you have good intentions but I would not suggest fellow Americans heed this advice. Voting isn’t about favorites or feelings; it is about political power. Republicans understand this and it is why they win as often as they do. Winning is the entire point. The US political system is winner take all. Winners govern and make policy. Losers only get to cry about it.
So you're aware that after the invention of nukes the world has reached an era of peace where large scale warfare between nuclear powers is impossible, yet you have decided they need to be eliminated because you visited a memorial and now you "feel bad".
Well yeah no shit lol. The purpose of that memorial is to show you USING nukes is a bad thing, and it is. The fact that not one single nuke has been used since WW2 shows that people do agree with you. Most nuclear powers choose to lose wars rather than force victory via nukes, such as US in Korea, Russia in Chechnya, or USSR in Afghanistan. A better solution than the removal of nukes is limits on launcher numbers such as the START treaties. Most countries have a no first strike policy as well.
At the end of the day regardless of what pop culture and trash clickbait articles might have you believe, no world leader wants to see their countries destroyed nor see themselves and their loves ones incinerated. There's always a serious risk of an accident, or a nuke going off somewhere but without nukes the chance of major catastrophe via major wars is almost guaranteed. If you want peace nukes are probably the best bad option.
I was not prepared to read the take "nukes are actually good"
Unironically yeah their existence has kept the world's major powers pretty peaceful so probably.
I do not trust Putin to not start a nuclear war. The man is crazy.
Well the Russian armed forces have been getting their cheeks clapped by Europe's poorest nation for the past three years. So badly are they getting spanked that the Ukrainians are actually invading Russia right now as we speak.
If Putin was so legitimately crazy that he would use nukes in Ukraine I imagine he would have years ago. I mean he has the "I win" button right there, so why won't he? Probably because he's not as stupid crazy as Western media wants you to believe.
You really think the cold war was a peaceful time? Living under the constant threat of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb is okay to you? There were no major open conflicts in Europe, but there were a bunch of wars in Africa and Asia. The US supported military dictatorships in Latin America killed and tortured people for decades. If you had limited your time frame for post USSR fall until recently I would agree with you more but then you couldn't say that nukes were responsible for that.
And this confirms what I said before, most americans want an imperialist US, even something as basic as getting rid of nukes will be opposed by supposedly level headed people.
Yeah it was much more peaceful than any other time in human history (besides right now I guess). The most deadly war post WW2 was the second Congo war where 5 million people died. This means for every person who died in that war eight died in WW1 and TWENTY died in WW2, and to clarify the Second Congo War was a huge outlier. Most post WW2 wars have deaths far below 1 million. Wars in Africa, South America, and Asia during the cold war were irrelevant blips. Why were they irrelevant blips when these sides were supported by two global superpowers? Because both sides were so afraid of escalation to nuclear war that they chose to lose wars vs escalation. If not for nukes we'd probably see a conflict in Europe with the Soviets in the 60s and who knows how many that would have killed. Maybe we'd even have another world war a few decades later. Who knows. We would live in a terrifying world where the only thing stopping wars is leaders thinking they can't win.
Look I'm not going to do this pointless back and forth with you. Unrestricted total wars by major world powers are absurdly destructive, and giving each side nukes is probably the thing that made everyone play (relatively) nice for the past 70 years. It's not fair to say nukes are the ONLY reason the post WW2 world has been comparably peaceful, but they certainly had a solid role in it.
Last edited:
They are, a country that doesn't have nukes doesn't have true sovereignty and autonomy on the world stage.
He will not.
- Status