Watching colleagues commit genocide sounds an awful lot like being an accomplice to genocide.

It sounds like those doctors's opinions may not be enough to overturn to conviction. I thought it also said that their assessment was pretty much over one specific area regarding where air was injected and it's not encompassing all of the evidence presented in the case. Too me it sounds like a weak argument, but that's based solely on this article with minimal background information.

Queue the Curb Your Enthusiasm music.

Okay, Hitler.

Most of us can, yea.

As a whole it sounds like a, "you're wrong, educate yourself, there's only one way out of this". I did intentionally say "kinda like a dick", because it wasn't super harsh, just enough off putting.

The edits were the icing that put everyone else off.

Apologies, I didn't realize that you weren't the person that I originally responded to.

I'm not trying to convince them. I don't give a fuck if they change their tone. I was only telling them why the post wasn't well received.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of something. I'm just telling why you're being downvoted, and it's not because of the content of your post. I'd post differently if I were trying to make a sincere point.

It's not that we don't agree with you, it's that your kinda acting like a dick. Change your tone and you might get a better reception.

ACAB.

With that out of the way, I'm ok having a specially trained and competent department or whatever to handle high pressure dangerous situations that they are equipped for literally and mentally (deescalation, negotiating, etc). Really, I think that could probably be a job for the national guard. It's unfortunate that the world has bad enough people that sometimes armed personnel are required, but it should be under trained, power hungry gangsters cops.

Cool, but that doesn't happen in the general election. The seems aren't good, but had 3rd party and non voters voted for Harris, then yes, the Democratic party would have saved us from Trump. Realistically, it's the people saving us from Trump via the Democratic party, but at the end of the day, we got Trump because those same individuals decided a Trump presidency was the better outcome. Full stop.

I agree with you on everything you wrote.

I'm not trying to say that Harris would have been good for Palestine, or even a good POTUS. I'm saying she was the less bad option overall in the election. I don't know that anything would be different with Israel had she won, but I think there was a better chance that she would have done something good over Trump doing something good. That could still be a negligible chance, but it was the better of two chances.

Like you said, local elections and primaries (when they're held, but that's separate from this overall conversation) are when to vote for different parties and more fringe candidates. One of two people is already the winner in the election by the time November rolls around, so it comes down to least bad.

You're right, it would have, but the reality was Trump or Harris. It was still an extremely easy decision, but it would have been better if the less shitty candidate was even less shitty.

It was, because that's reality. It does disregard a lot of criticism, because again, at the end of the day, there were two candidates, and one was going to win. Harris wasn't, imo, a good candidate, but Trump was a far worse.

In the US, it's been that way for the better part of the past century, because FPtP always devolves to a two party system. This past election was no different.

I'm specifically arguing with/against non voters, 3rd party voters, and Trump voters. I also pinched my nose and voted for Harris in November. I'm not going to argue for the democratic party, because it's the second worst major party in the US, and they suck. Unfortunately, we are a FPtP nation, so in the general we get two options and get to pick who's less bad. Lot's of people that voted for Harris did so with that in mind.

All, unfortunately, true.

Edit: Unfortunate for us in the US, not necessarily unfortunate for the rest of the world in some aspects. I still think as a whole his influence and other actions probably still make him worse for the world, but there is a valid argument about nations growing less dependent on the US.

Hopefully in 3.5 years (or please God, less), the US will be knocked down a peg on the world stage, other nations have a more diverse and stable trade relationships, and maybe Trump's actions will help spark other countries into action against hard right politics to prevent the same thing from happening to them. Ideally, this could be a catalyst for positive change, but I'm not holding my breath.

The argument has always been, of the two candidates, one of which will win, which is less bad? People that voted third party or didn't vote decided that Trump is less bad.

Some of them I'm sure thought it, but definitely a minority. It's the fact that Gaza was used as a means to target Harris, and against all evidence suggesting it would be the same or worse, didn't do the same to condemn Trump.

Same. I've had cancer wished on me, suicide, and a few other things. Like you said, it's solidly let me know the kind of people that I'm criticizing.

Someone lost a friend in Lebanon, and that's sad. I'm sure if they were still here, they'd be stoked that their friend effectively supported Donald Trump to help out though.

She would have been better for the world as a whole than Trump. If you truely think that things would have played out exactly the same in Gaza with Harris as POTUS, then it still comes down to two candidates last November, and every person knew that one of them would win. So a vote for Trump, a non vote, or a third party vote directly benefited Trump.

"Oh but I voted against genocide", fuck no you didn't. You voted in a manner that directly put Trump in charge, which was the worst possible outcome.