Seriously. Would Biden have started wars? He certainly didn’t use the leverage he had to end the Gaza war. And he certainly wouldn’t have done anything to help home prices. If he felt Iran was close to a bomb, he certainly would have bombed Tehran. Him or Kamala. Hell, Kamala’s signature kitchen table policy was a bone-headed plan to offer a large tax credit to first-time home buyers. Except that would have done nothing except bid property prices even higher.
These are objectively true facts. Yet, liberals often are just as prone to cults of personality as Republicans. The same sin of “my side can do no wrong” infects both parties.
What’s speculation? Biden oversaw brutal wars and a historic cost of living crisis. I’m not speculating; I’m citing documented history. Did you forget about Gaza and the inflation?
Or are you just so blind that you assume any criticism of the Dear Leader on the left is an endorsement of the Dear Leader on the right?
Everything happening now and you’re still simping for trump while pretending to be some moral angel. You and your dozen .ml trolls who also love to do this are getting on everyone else’s last nerves.
Not liking one choice = liking the other one is peak .world trolling. Where did anyone here simp for Trump?
And for the idiots downvoting: OP literally wrote “every sentence except the last one was entirely true”, which means they don’t think that Trump is responsible for peace and prosperity. You’d have to be really fucking stupid to think they’re “simping for Trump”.
And he certainly wouldn’t have done anything to help home prices. If he felt Iran was close to a bomb, he certainly would have bombed Tehran. Him or Kamala. Hell, Kamala’s signature kitchen table policy was a bone-headed plan to offer a large tax credit to first-time home buyers. Except that would have done nothing except bid property prices even higher.
None of these are “objectively true facts.” This is speculation.
Maybe Kamala’s house buying plan would have driven up prices a bit. But unless it somehow drove up the costs of all houses by the amount of “free” money, then it still would have been effective for its purpose; getting a house for a first time buyer. You don’t need the same type of help when switching houses.
What part of anything other than the last sentence is false? And don’t bring up Trump. We’re talking about Biden, not Trump. Some of us aren’t so blind to think that any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump. Biden’s term ended with the US overseeing a brutal war in Gaza and a historic cost of living crisis. You don’t even have to speculate about what Biden would have done, you just have to look at what he actually did.
Why do you think any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump? You’re trapped in prison of “my team” political thinking. And this thinking is exactly what lead us to Trump in the first place.
Biden’s term ended with the US overseeing a brutal war in Gaza and a historic cost of living crisis.
Yes, I too remember the US invading Palestine to kidnap their leader. I too remember Biden saying they should turn Gaza into a giant casino and beach resort. I definitely remember Biden threatening to invade denmark if sweden won’t give him a medal.
Why do you think any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump?
Well, you see, if there are two candidates, and you say “don’t vote for that one” it’s a defacto endorsement of the other.
Are you fucking kidding me? That’s literally the exact thing that you’re saying.
Them: Here are Biden’s stances, and I consider them inexcusable"
You: Actually, they are excusable because lists a bunch of stuff Trump did
If that’s not what you’re saying, then go ahead and explain how Biden’s actions are excusable, why supporting him is defensible, without doing a whataboutism by bringing up Trump doing the same thing. As the other commenter requested.
I swear, whataboutism is just something y’all made up where the only rule is “I’m always right.” What a load of bull.
Whataboutism would be if I said “Biden’s support for the Gaza genocide is acceptable because Trump rapes little girls”. What I actually said was “Biden’s warmongering is nowhere near as severe as Trump’s warmongering”.
And the difference matters, because the context was a tweet that says “If you vote for Biden, you will be at war, so you should vote for Trump”.
Whataboutism would be if I said “Biden’s support for the Gaza genocide is acceptable because Trump rapes little girls”. What I actually said was “Biden’s warmongering is nowhere near as severe as Trump’s warmongering”.
That’s complete bullshit. There’s no requirement that you change the topic of the thing in question, that’s 100% arbitrary.
If someone criticized China for saber-rattling with Taiwan, and in response I brought up that the US had not only saber-rattled but actually conducted full scale invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, would that be a whataboutism? Because I would certainly expect to see people lob the accusation at me.
because the context was a tweet that says “If you vote for Biden, you will be at war, so you should vote for Trump”.
The context is a comment thread where someone said that the first parts of the tweet were correct, but not the line endorsing Trump. You’re being very dishonest by ignoring that. If you want to make a comment about the tweet in full, then make a top-level comment.
Here’s the thing though - US voters went into an election with a binary winner-takes-all choice for the head of their executive branch in a country where the executive branch wields an immense amount of power. Some chose to not take part because neither candidate appealed to them. Many made that choice due to a candidate’s foreign policy positions. It is very reasonable to assume that those are votes that would have not gone to the more conservative/regressive side.
Result: popular vote went to the regressives. And since foreign policy issues could very well have been a cause in this (i.e. people basing their choice to not vote on a candidate’s impacts on foreign populations), the end result is kind of ironic… The death and misery that will result from funding changes in things like PEPFAR, USAID, US funding contributions to various UN programs, refugee programs, etc. will far surpass anything happening in Gaza. Nevermind the incredible economic impacts (and very real resulting human consequences) of tariffs on people in so-called “shithole countries” - like me.
And that’s not even mentioning the totally foreseeable domestic consequences that US voters are now seeing.
So tell me again how choosing not to vote in the US presidential election was a morally sound choice?
I mean, to be fair, every sentence except the last one was entirely true.
American Liberal rage at the truth incoming.
Seriously. Would Biden have started wars? He certainly didn’t use the leverage he had to end the Gaza war. And he certainly wouldn’t have done anything to help home prices. If he felt Iran was close to a bomb, he certainly would have bombed Tehran. Him or Kamala. Hell, Kamala’s signature kitchen table policy was a bone-headed plan to offer a large tax credit to first-time home buyers. Except that would have done nothing except bid property prices even higher.
These are objectively true facts. Yet, liberals often are just as prone to cults of personality as Republicans. The same sin of “my side can do no wrong” infects both parties.
yeah i can see you went to speculation real fast.
What’s speculation? Biden oversaw brutal wars and a historic cost of living crisis. I’m not speculating; I’m citing documented history. Did you forget about Gaza and the inflation?
Or are you just so blind that you assume any criticism of the Dear Leader on the left is an endorsement of the Dear Leader on the right?
Everything happening now and you’re still simping for trump while pretending to be some moral angel. You and your dozen .ml trolls who also love to do this are getting on everyone else’s last nerves.
Not liking one choice = liking the other one is peak .world trolling. Where did anyone here simp for Trump?
And for the idiots downvoting: OP literally wrote “every sentence except the last one was entirely true”, which means they don’t think that Trump is responsible for peace and prosperity. You’d have to be really fucking stupid to think they’re “simping for Trump”.
the speculation that Biden would bomb Iran over hint of a bomb. also you really think i cant see through you. btw let me know if im too direct 😆
None of these are “objectively true facts.” This is speculation.
Maybe Kamala’s house buying plan would have driven up prices a bit. But unless it somehow drove up the costs of all houses by the amount of “free” money, then it still would have been effective for its purpose; getting a house for a first time buyer. You don’t need the same type of help when switching houses.
The only true fact you have is about Israel.
Liberals piss me off more because I feel like they should know better. They certainly act like they do.
Don’t you have a Jill Stein rally to go to or something?
Jill is still in her statis pod waiting for her triumphant return in 2028!
I wonder if Putin sprang for the deluxe pod or the budget model.
Budget. He’s got a 3 day war to finish!
She thinks you can cure autism with crystals.
lol you for real?
Yeah, this fool is always happy to ignore reality, loudly.
What part of anything other than the last sentence is false? And don’t bring up Trump. We’re talking about Biden, not Trump. Some of us aren’t so blind to think that any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump. Biden’s term ended with the US overseeing a brutal war in Gaza and a historic cost of living crisis. You don’t even have to speculate about what Biden would have done, you just have to look at what he actually did.
Why do you think any criticism of Biden is an endorsement of Trump? You’re trapped in prison of “my team” political thinking. And this thinking is exactly what lead us to Trump in the first place.
Yes, but in context that was the only alternative at the time. Right?
Tearing down Biden benefitted Trump.
At this point, I have to assume this was the goal.
Tankies don’t want to stop fascism. They want purity tests.
Yes, I too remember the US invading Palestine to kidnap their leader. I too remember Biden saying they should turn Gaza into a giant casino and beach resort. I definitely remember Biden threatening to invade denmark if sweden won’t give him a medal.
Well, you see, if there are two candidates, and you say “don’t vote for that one” it’s a defacto endorsement of the other.
Whataboutism. Two things can be true at once.
Whataboutism would be saying “what Biden does is excusable because Trump does it too”.
So no, it’s not whataboutism.
Are you fucking kidding me? That’s literally the exact thing that you’re saying.
Them: Here are Biden’s stances, and I consider them inexcusable"
You: Actually, they are excusable because lists a bunch of stuff Trump did
If that’s not what you’re saying, then go ahead and explain how Biden’s actions are excusable, why supporting him is defensible, without doing a whataboutism by bringing up Trump doing the same thing. As the other commenter requested.
I swear, whataboutism is just something y’all made up where the only rule is “I’m always right.” What a load of bull.
Whataboutism would be if I said “Biden’s support for the Gaza genocide is acceptable because Trump rapes little girls”. What I actually said was “Biden’s warmongering is nowhere near as severe as Trump’s warmongering”.
And the difference matters, because the context was a tweet that says “If you vote for Biden, you will be at war, so you should vote for Trump”.
That’s complete bullshit. There’s no requirement that you change the topic of the thing in question, that’s 100% arbitrary.
If someone criticized China for saber-rattling with Taiwan, and in response I brought up that the US had not only saber-rattled but actually conducted full scale invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, would that be a whataboutism? Because I would certainly expect to see people lob the accusation at me.
The context is a comment thread where someone said that the first parts of the tweet were correct, but not the line endorsing Trump. You’re being very dishonest by ignoring that. If you want to make a comment about the tweet in full, then make a top-level comment.
Talkies really need to get with the program.
It’s a two party system. I’d love it if there was a magical third option but that’s not how the electoral college works
Here’s the thing though - US voters went into an election with a binary winner-takes-all choice for the head of their executive branch in a country where the executive branch wields an immense amount of power. Some chose to not take part because neither candidate appealed to them. Many made that choice due to a candidate’s foreign policy positions. It is very reasonable to assume that those are votes that would have not gone to the more conservative/regressive side.
Result: popular vote went to the regressives. And since foreign policy issues could very well have been a cause in this (i.e. people basing their choice to not vote on a candidate’s impacts on foreign populations), the end result is kind of ironic… The death and misery that will result from funding changes in things like PEPFAR, USAID, US funding contributions to various UN programs, refugee programs, etc. will far surpass anything happening in Gaza. Nevermind the incredible economic impacts (and very real resulting human consequences) of tariffs on people in so-called “shithole countries” - like me.
And that’s not even mentioning the totally foreseeable domestic consequences that US voters are now seeing.
So tell me again how choosing not to vote in the US presidential election was a morally sound choice?