I want Mark Kelly
Not a terrible pick, but Tim Walz makes so much sense.
Can you give me your reasons why you like them?
Sure, speaking in terms of why he could bring more votes:
- He was a teacher for 20 years and has a Midwestern small town vibe that could appeal to a lot of voters
- He has so much charisma and isn’t afraid to call out far right leadership, but he does it in a way that does not alienate that voter base. He has even taken his message to fox news.
- He started the whole “weird” thing that is now being used effectively to nullify Trump and Vance’s empty rhetoric.
- His record as gov in Minnesota speaks for itself
- He’s very popular among labor unions
You really need to listen to him speak to understand his potential impact. Here’s a 10 min video containing a few of the interviews I’ve seen (after the short intro): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-nR3dRCAM
I’ll vote for Kamala Harris regardless of who she picks for Vice.
Please please please, now is not the moment for an additional new minority to make the ticket. It’s already gonna be hard for many people to vote for a woman, and an Indian. We need the most vanilla white christian male to be Kamala’s running mate.
We need the most vanilla white christian male to be Kamala’s running mate.
That’s what Hillary did with Tim Caine and we all know how THAT turned out…
I can remember most President/VP tickets, but didn’t even recognize Kaine at all… I must have completely tuned out after she screwed Bernie.
She didn’t screw Bernie, she crushed him, as much as I hate to admit it. Believing that Bernie got screwed, rather than beat, is the equivalent of believing trump got screwed, rather than beat.
He’s an AIPAC stooge. Fuck him.
It would be hilarious if Democrats lost the election because some ignorant 20-somethings care more about Gaza than America.
It would be tragic if Democrats lost the election because some corrupt boomers care more about continuing to enable genocide than America. Particularly after we finally had some goddamned hope.
You’re confused. Both sides are complicit, neither wants a resolution. Let them fight.
“Both sides” hate each other because the conflict is over a century old by now. Both sides use terrorism against each other too. That does not mean that both sides are in the right. Is the bully who is stealing the lunch money as morally justified to fight the bullied victim, as the bullied victim who is merely trying to stop the bully from stealing their lunch money?
Do you also look at other atrocities throughout history and blame the victim for hating and fighting against their oppressor?
Both sides are complicit
That doesn’t mean we have to be.
because
some ignorant 20-somethingspeople of all ages with principles caremoreabout human rights in Gazathan America.Fixed it for you.
And even if they didn’t care about Gaza, do Americans really want a foreign country to have so much influence on their elections and politicians?
Americans who care about America should want to get rid of AIPAC.
Most of these posts and comments are foreign influence campaigns meddling in US elections, so do Americans really want foreign posters influencing their elections? Nope. Move along.
Obligatory reminder that Trump will be substantially worse for Gaza so it’s still wrong
I completely agree that not voting or voting for Trump would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
What I’m saying isn’t that people SHOULD do either. I’m saying that it’s a bad idea to give people who would do such a thing a knife, figuratively speaking.
I find it interesting how the agency and duty is always with the voters to swallow a turd, rather that with the politicians to offer non-turds.
Maybe more voters than you think actually want the turd. Most Americans can’t find Gaza on a map let alone give a shit about it.
But of those who do, faced with a choice between Israelis or Palestinians controlling that region, they’re probably going to choose Israel every time. Neither side wants to coexist. And when you lose a war, you don’t typically get much agency.
Entirely possible, but the argument strikes me… oddly Republican. As in it’s on a surface level short-sighted, in that it’s pandering to the base and calling it “will of the people”, regardless of long term repercussions, and deep-level ideological, in that it anchors this “will of the people” on a presupposed silent majority, that just so happens to always agree with the party heads.
If the Democrats were supporting a Genocide by the KKK in Detroid would that prevent you from voting for them?
You’re not even making sense.
They’re trying to argue that we give less weight to tragedies that happen elsewhere as opposed to in your own backyard.
BUT federal government has less international power than they do in their own country (obviously) so it’s an argument in bad faith. This is assuming that “Detroid” is meant to be Detroit and not a fictional planet great value Metroid.
I’m just wondering where the line is. I really thought everyone claiming to have morals would draw it at Genocide but apparently I’m the minority.
Put your own mask on first…
