To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war. Trump pretty much plans to roll over and give people like Putin whatever they want.

So you have a bit of a point there, but again in the worst way

How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps

Thanks for explaining your reasoning, and lucky that the woman wasn’t the fascist this time like in France or Italy

It just implies that looking at the candidates the biggest and most important difference you see is that one is a woman.

Like, it’s great that you did vote for that woman as she also happens to be in favour of women having rights, lgbtq+ people having rights, doesn’t want mass deportions, still wants there to be elections in the future and a painfully long list of stark differences like that. It’s just impressive that none of that mattered to you, or that you are unaware of it

Not doing it might

They’re really not though. You literally have two options and one is so obviously worse

Amazing that you at least did the overwhelming obvious right thing even though your reasons are awful

Slow genocide is better though. We all get that right?

vote blue to start turning the state into a swing state. Definitely don’t vote green as they are on the record of trying to make trump win

If you only buy essentials like that finding alternative suppliers can’t be that hard

Buy less stuff?

Bombing campaigns are surprisingly ineffective at winning wars. Iran could possibly kill some people but it would be very far from winning that way. Not in an hour, not in a decade