Right? I don’t remember seeing a debate or anything. It’s equivalent to those elections people make fun of in North Korea, where the choices are the leader and nobody.

Arrest you for protesting a genocide or trying to get an abortion? No, sorry, that’s something people in the US have to worry about when their government has their data, not China.

Considering our data is being bought and sold by US companies to whoever I don’t think this is going to help with that. Tbh, I’m more scared of the US having our data than China. The US can use it to find people seeking abortions, or to track protestors trying to get human rights, or things like that. Not China. I’d rather they make a general law to preserve privacy, but this half-assed measure to preserve US monopolies.

The revealed their code to a US company already: Oracle.

They just don’t like that the youth use it to see what’s happening in other parts of the world, like Palestine. They want to be able to keep the US populace within their propaganda bubble, in the state we were in when we didn’t know about things like the Irgun or The Great March of Return.

Sure, by that logic Putin and Kim Jong IL are legitimate Presidents as well. The other candidates should’ve tried harder.

At least he sounded a lot more energetic and present in this speech. What happened on stage?

Also if they didn’t mess with the primary through media contacts, plus the media itself having its own biases due to their corporate owners and neoliberal talk show hosts, plus things like being able to offer favors to certain candidates for dropping out, or using past power like Obama to secure endorsements and stuff. It’s super rigged.

He’s pro genocide. That automatically makes him not progressive.

What? No! But we make such a big deal about spreading democracy. Say it ain’t so!

In all seriousness I hope this election makes the rest of the US wake up to the fact that our democracy sucks, and we can stop being a hypocrite about destroying the way of life for other countries like Cuba because we don’t like there’s.

He’s a milquetoast centrist moderate who will champion the same neoliberal policies that led us to this current state of crisis in America. He was also a proud McKinsey consultant and I think he worked with the CIA. During the election I thought his main issues were just not enough experience, though (he was just mayor of a small town basically). Social issue wise he’s better than Trump still. Anyone is, though lol.

Is she pro genocide? My only problem with Biden is his age and Israel policy, and I have no idea what hers are.

Right? I was about to say, this can’t be the first politician AIPAC has bought and placed into our government.

Really? That made me like him more. Finally a Congressmen didn’t take the Republican’s shit lying down.

I kinda see their point, though. Even that kind of performative gesture would get headlines and demonstrate to the public that they’re trying actively to fight for the cause. It’s like when Trump would try to do something and get shut down, like with the Muslim ban or something. He would look like he was doing something and getting obstructed by courts or the “deep state”, but it made people feel like they had an advocate on their site, even though he just didn’t care that much and was mostly out to enrich himself.

He literally gave an example of a filibuster on the House floor in his comment. Idk how effective it would be, but he did source an example of someone fighting with a filibuster.

Yeah I’m glad everyone else was confused, too. I felt like the dumb one for thinking it was the opposite.

Right? It seems repetitive.

You have to imagine other people have no idea about Marxism but what they’ve heard from US propaganda. When they hear you support China, Cuba, and Vietnam, they just hear you supporting dictator for life Xi Jinping and one party state Cuba and Vietnam. You guys need better answers than this.

The other person’s answer was pretty good, though.

I guess it’s a combination of spamming plus one point of view. That still doesn’t really strike me as bannable, as most people will post articles they agree with and hence want to share that way. As long as the posted articles are true, then the only issue I see is the spamming part, which is the only thing I agree could be an issue.

You should make spamming too many articles within a certain X time a rule then. I think it needs to be more objective. This is getting into partisan territory.