#I'll vote independent if i have to

[amerasdreams]

There is a vacuum for someone with actual integrity, honor, honesty, courage, compassion, character, civility, responsibility, defender of justice, freedom, truth, life to run in 2024. Where are they? Not a career politician who is also not a narcissist.

A woman-- because we need one for once. Women can have all these qualities so why not this time. With the bonus of a role model for girls. So many other countries have had woman presidents and prime ministers-- high time for our country.

[post-futurism]

I went to a local greens rally and unfortunately this will be the first time in my life that I'm not going to vote for a greens candidate even though there is one available.

[maddy-ferguson]

i love that the last people heard the leftist coalition won the french legislative elections so they think we have a leftist government now lol

[unrelaxing]

From a country where voting is not a choice, but a duty, it's interesting seeing American discourse every four years on whether or not voting matters. This year there's an added layer, because Joe Biden has been supporting Israel's genocide against Palestine. Now there's a pervading sentiment - both in and out of the US - that voting for Joe Biden supports Palestinian genocide, and it's an American's moral duty to withhold their vote in support of Palestine.

I guess the question I ask is: how is withholding your vote effective activism?

If you don't vote, and Trump wins, he says he will deport pro-Palestine demonstrators. He says he supports Israel's right to defend itself. If you vote independent, and Trump wins the same thing happens.

If Biden wins, he will continue his support of Israel.

So: Is voting really the battleground for the Palestinian genocide, when either outcome leads down the same road?

And what other battles are being fought in this presidential race?

Gun laws - Biden passed "the most significant gun safety legislation in more than two decades", the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It includes enhanced background checks for gun purchasers, and prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence towards a romantic partner from purchasing a gun (wherein the past a 'boyfriend loophole' had existed, wherein the law only applied if an individual was convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or cohabitant). Trump has promised to overturn Biden's new laws.

Healthcare - Uninsured Americans are at an all-time low under Biden's administration, with only 7.6% of Americans being uninsured in the second quarter of 2023. The number of people who signed up to Obamacare in 2024 is at 21.3 million - and Trump plans to repeal it.

Climate change - Biden's Inflation Reduction Act invests 300 billion dollars towards clean energy. Electricity generation from renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and hydropower — surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time in 2022, making it the second-biggest source behind natural gas generation. At a recent dinner with oil executives and lobbyists, the Republican promised to eliminate Mr Biden's new climate rules and environmental regulations if they donated $1bn to his campaign.

Much has been said about Trump's second term beyond the above three points. @batboyblog posted a very clear and concise graphic on Trump's plans for his second term.

The BBC has also posted about Trump's plans for his second term, which I'll screenshot:

Trump is now a felon, but I was really shocked to learn about how little impact this has on his ability to run as president. His supporters are likely to stay by his side, because they believe in these policies.

Biden does not have the same luxury. I don't think he should have the same luxury. Still, I feel like it's important to point out that Trump and Biden's opinions on Israel and Palestine align, but there are a plethora of other issues they do not align on. As a voter, as an activist, when given two political parties, why would you choose based on the similarities as opposed to the differences?

Ways to help Gaza.

Vetted gofundmes.

Other links to help Palestine.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Why is it that every time I poke fun at the "vote blue no matter who" crowd they immediately jump to assuming that I'm a Democrat moaning about Biden/Harris/whoever not being perfectly to my tastes. I'm not. I'm a slightly right-leaning independent. I voted Jorgensen in 2020 (YMMV on whether that makes me a traitor and to whom) and I'll probably vote either Independent again or Republican this time.

This isn't a case of the calls coming from inside the house. I've never once set out to give that impression. This is me looking in at a bunch of people who have spent the last decade going "never mind actually having more than two parties that mean anything, the only way to save democracy is to have single-party control (by our party, of course)" and pointing out that that's a fucked up and terrifying philosophy to have.

[curioscurio]

Genuine question, if you are voting for Biden why not just vote independent? Biden is not going to win regardless. Why not just skip the vote for genocide and vote for someone that actually cares about Palestinians

Because I live in Florida, which is a powerful swing state. Giving my vote to anyone other than the person who has the best chance at beating Trump is throwing it away. If Trump dies, I'll vote someone else. If Biden dies, I'll vote someone else. If it seems like everyone in the world has finally agreed on a unanimous third party vote by november, I'll vote someone else. Anything can happen before then, and my vote isn't set in stone.

Until then, the majority of undecided voters are going to vote Biden. There's a lot more people in Florida who are tired of the Trump train than you think. They're seeing his trials, his lies, and they're tired. There are a lot of students in Florida who are now eligible to vote. 4 years worth of 18 year olds who all have tik tok and are very much against all the bullshit in the world. And they all understand how the electoral college works. They know their votes could turn Florida blue.

America does not run on Popular vote, it runs on the electoral college. This means that every US state gets a certain number of votes out of 538 total. Some states, like Wyoming, get 3 votes. That means that my state, Florida, effectively gets 30 votes out of the 270 needed to win the presidency. But, here's the catch, ALL of those votes can only go to ONE candidate. (There are exceptions in 2 states, Nebraska and Maine.) If Trump gets more votes than any other single candidate in Florida, all 30 votes go to Trump.

It's called a swing state for a reason, because it can swing the race heavily in one candidates favor. Only Texas and Califorina get more votes at 40 and 54, respectively.

If all the Republicans in Florida vote for Trump, but all the Democrats and Independents are voting for people other than the person on the ballot, Trump will still get 30 votes. Even if some Republicans vote Biden, if everyone else is writing different candidates in, when everything is tallied, Trump could still win.

Imagine you have 270 red delicious apples, 200 Green apples, 38 yellow apples, and 30 macintosh apples. There are still more Red Delicious apples than any other kind, so Red Delicious gets the Presidency. Luckily, people in Florida who liked Red Delicious apples last year are getting tired and might pick Green apples instead this time. They are almost guaranteed to not pick a golden or macintosh apple, though.

This is what happened in 2016 that allowed Trump to win when he LOST to Hillary Clinton for the popular vote. More electoral college votes went to Trump than they did to any other person. From person to person, more Americans as a whole voted for Hillary. It's all about where you live physically.

This is the reason why I'm voting for Biden at the moment. If things change, I'll happily change too!

And Obviously I don't support Genocide. My point is that realistically speaking, Trump has flat out said to just "finish them" already, so it's not out there to assume he will push to accelerate this genocide using nuclear retaliation. I'm not trying to fear monger, I'm saying this system is broken, and they're lying to you about how it works in order to take advantage of your ignorance. Whoever gets the most votes win? Not exactly, but if you don't bother to look any closer, you'll never know you were playing a rigged game from the start.

Vote however you need to for your state. But understand where your vote is going. One vote is the difference between 30 and 3 electoral votes.

[ceilidhtransing]

Baffled by the people who say things like “back when it was Biden v Trump, I was going to vote third party, since Biden had no chance of winning” - like, do you not kinda realise that huge numbers of people deciding to vote third party “because it's a given that Biden will lose” is partly why he (probably) would have lost?

Elections aren't pre-decided! The results depend on what you (and millions of other people) do! If your feeling is something like “ugh the Democrat is going to lose so I'll just stay home / vote third party”, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Democrat isn't just “going to lose regardless” no matter what anyone does; you are actively creating, in your own tiny way, the conditions under which the Democrat loses.

We see the same thing here in the UK. “There's no way the Conservatives will ever lose this seat” so the left splits its vote eighteen ways and oops the Conservative candidate wins with like thirty-nine percent of the vote.

It feels like some people subconsciously think of an election as something that just Happens independent of them, and that their vote isn't something that creates the result, but rather something that indicates to what extent they agree with the result. And I get it; in an election with a nine-figure number of votes it must be hard to feel like your individual vote makes much of a difference, to see a tangible connection between your vote and the outcome. But seriously: election results don't just Happen as some kind of force of nature. They depend entirely on the votes people choose to cast. And if your thought is “well I'm just me”, there are millions of “just me”s in the electorate. In fact, the electorate is nothing but a whole load of “just me”s.

So much of politics relies not on convincing people of your ideas, but on convincing them that the candidate they prefer either Has It In The Bag, so they don't need to turn up and vote, or Has No Chance, so they either shouldn't bother voting or should throw away their vote on some third-party candidate who - simply by the way the system is set up mathematically - genuinely never stood a chance in hell of winning anyway. (This is not a “you should vote third party” post, because this post acknowledges the reality that the US presidency is going to go to one of only two people, regardless of how anyone wishes the system worked.)

“Why should I vote for candidate A? They're never going to beat candidate B anyway!” cry ten thousand progressive voters, meanwhile horrible conservative candidate B wins by a margin of nine thousand and something. Attitudes create outcomes. Votes create outcomes.

Nothing is decided yet. The result is not predetermined. Your vote is part of what makes the result - and the outcome is going to be either Harris or Trump. And I know it's a cliche, but truly the only poll that matters is the one on election day. Please don't fall victim to defeatist self-fulfilling prophecies that only serve to help create the outcome you never wanted in the first place.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA as a therapist, to limit when patients can reach out to me?

⏰🌃

Before you scroll down and vote YTA please read. To start I don't have paid clients. I work at a public clinic where all the "clients" are people that don't pay per session, they pay taxes, taxes pay me. I work on business hours and I am paid a fixed amount per month independent of if I had 30 or 130 sessions/month. I usually have around 144 sessions/month, though.

The thing is, I am paid a laughable amount per patient by the psychology council (think about ⅕ of what I should be being paid by patient), and I have about 120 patients/month, i am fully booked for at least 1 month and half in advance and the work is rewarding but very demanding. So when I get home all i want to do is to open my Minecraft and have a good night of sleep before starting my routine of having 9 patients per day.

This out of the way, I have some patients that are mostly okay, some that are feeling unwell some of the time, some that are feeling bad most of the time, some that are very very bad all the time.

The issue i have with messaging as a therapist is,

1) tone doesn't carries well over messages

2) I've been receiving messages from patients at 10/11pm when I am about to sleep and I usually answer with "I am unavailable right now but I'll talk to you by the morning. If you're in an emergency, you can go to the municipal hospital to get a fast and effective treatment". Most of messages are patients trying to tell me they'll skip the next session for some reason, though.

3) if someone is really trying to kill themselves, me being over message will do jackshit.

A patient called me out on that saying that I am a therapist, therefore I should be available to patients at all times because what if someone is trying to kill themselves and I am the only thing that saves them? And I have been thinking that maybe limiting when my patients can reach out to me might be an asshole move. (This patient was just trying to reschedule, though)

Tldr: am i the asshole for limiting when patients can talk to me over text message?

[decolonize-the-everything]

i’m curious. what is your solution instead of voting for Harris? I 100% agree with you that her/her party/the system she will work in are facist, have committed countless atrocities against their own people and others, all of it. I really do agree with you. I guess what I don’t understand is what other realistic option there is right now. Not voting for Harris or voting independent is statistically highly likely to bring about a trump presidency, which would be (of the two) expontentially more harmful for our communities here in America and across the world, including palestine.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is it’s true you can’t put the fire out from inside the house. participating in a poisoned system isn’t going to be the cure. But is there really a realistic way to get outside of the house? Is there really a way to secure funding, land, and resources for sustainable practices entirely separate from the colonial state we live in? And would putting effort toward those methods bring about more peace and freedom to marginalized communities - including those in Palestine, India, Bangladesh, Sudan, and countless others, than working with the cards the system gave us? Or at least, not working against them? Global politics govern our lives whether we want them to or not. I don’t think it’s possible to separate our situation from that, nor from our nation’s political system. I feel it is nigh impossible to attempt any sort of reform without working with the colonial state, as horrible as it may be.

Would love to hear your thoughts. I’ve read many of your posts and am just curious as to your direct response to this question - I do not intend to take away from all the other work you’ve done in attempting to educate and establish your point. Thank you for your time and I wish you health.

You are ready to go Offline it seems. I think a lot of people are honestly. A lot of people seem stuck on voting being the option with no clue for what else to do.

And since you are asking in good faith, I'll answer in good faith.

You are asking all of the right questions. So much that I can not answer this ask in detail. You'll have to seek out more specific information yourself. I can really only point you in the right direction.

That said let me run through what I can say in bullet points rq.

All of this is very rough and vague. that's intended. You gotta find the step by step guides on your own.

There's no guarantee kamala will win and so you shouldn't conduct yourself as if her winning is relevant to fighting fascism. Likewise, her losing shouldn't be seen as a crushing defeat, long term it means nothing.

Is there away to get outside the house? Yeah. The Black Panthers were experts at this and there is no shortage of literature, podcasts, and analysis about their work for you to learn from. It's why they were so dangerous. They were efficiently and quickly building an entirely new system that didn't need capitalism, cops, or politicians to function

This bullet point is also about the Black Panthers like I really want to drill it in that the extent of mutual aid, organization, community health, and community safety they provided was LITERALLY revolutionary and is the legitimate blueprint. Pls pls pls pls learn about their praxis. It even happened relatively modern/recent times so its truly invaluable knowledge to have for the person who wants to know what to do Right Now. Palestinian and global solidarity in general was also Very important to them. have u stressed them enough? I think I have

Build these groups of people (sometimes called pods) like branches in different areas. Expand to cross-state mutual aid networks. Those same connections/people shutting down highways, military ports, etc. Imagine the power of an organized people. That's how we as Americans will earn the trust of the global community. Putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to direct action and community care.

There's a REASON they made taking down organizations like The Black Panthers a top priority and never allowed them to get that far. The potential power they had was to topple the empire. And the state knew it.

You gotta be willing to get uncomfortable and be told you're wrong. Every time it happens itll be with love, I assure you. This next step of work requires trust and vulnerability and growth like you wouldn't believe. You will fuck up or misstep or speak over someone. Learn to take those hits to your ego and not take it personally now.

I mean it. Being online and learning is a whole different ball game than direct action/praxis. Nobody is going to coddle your hurt feelings and they won't invite you back if youre constantly just creating more labor for the people around you. They expect you to hold yourself accountable. People who do this work are very much not babysitters. It's high-key why it's it's hard for cops to infiltrate [redacted] circles

From Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement

That's not to say it doesn't happen. It does. Which is another reason people do not fuck around with the company they keep when it comes to offline praxis.

Here are a few books Im trying to read rn that seem relevant to this ask, if anyone else has something else/better to rec to anon, please do 💗

Also gonna link these because I can

There are no upcoming dates but linking this anyway because it's worth considering that you should train for certain kinds of direct action

[suratan-zir]

Hi. I wanted to ask how you have those among Ukrainians who believe in russian propaganda. I just met one refugee from Kharkov, and he told me that Putin is fighting for the Russian world, and it was the United States that started the war. He reasons that since he speaks Russian, he should support Russia's actions. And this despite the fact that his city was bombed, and he and his family were on the verge of life and death.

Hi. I can't really answer this. I mean, I can try, but I'm not good at answering vague questions. I'm not well-spoken enough.

How come so many USAmericans worship Trump and see him as a savior of the poor when he's the exact opposite? How come far-right parties all across Europe gain more and more popularity, with people believing that fascists in power will resolve all their problems? Hell, we can take it a step further and ask how come people become anti-vaxxers and flat Earth believers? The answer is only one - propaganda. People fall under the harmful influence.

Russian propaganda has been extremely active in the southeast of Ukraine basically since we gained independence. Russia has been spending millions upon millions on brainwashing Ukrainians. The propaganda became more and more aggressive since the Orange Revolution. It was everywhere in the Donbas, you couldn't even wear a piece of orange clothing without risking being beaten up.

I was only a middle-schooler, but I remember it in detail. Propaganda materials such as leaflets were distributed everywhere. I remember one with Viktor Yushchenko (pro-European presidential candidate) against the background of the US flag and Uncle Sam who's saying, "Yushchenko is our pResident." I remember asking my mother what it meant, and she said it means that Yushchenko is a very bad person. This stuff was wild. And it only got wilder.

Russian propaganda claims over the years varied from the statement that "Donbas feeds the entire Ukraine" to "pro-European politicians and the US will make concentration camps in the Donbas for the Russian-speakers and will populate the territory with people from the West instead." I don't know how, but people believed in this purely artificial conflict. Not only were there never any persecutions against the Russian-speakers, but you would actually feel more comfortable speaking Russian in Ukraine. In most regions, the Ukrainian language was considered a "redneck" language and would get you nowhere. Of course, the Ukrainian government is also to blame for letting Russia control the narrative. But for most of these independent years, Ukraine was basically externally managed by Russia. During Yanukovych's presidency, we were like Belarus is now - a false "president" taking instructions straight from the Kremlin. So the brainwashing was getting worse and worse.

I told this story several times, and I'll tell it again. Before the "referendum" in Donetsk, most people laughed at the idea of the "republic." It was supported by some local lunatics, but mostly the whole thing was done by russian mercenaries and russian military. During this time, my aunt told me that those who support this are crazy and they're calling war into our homes. She was a reasonable person. She had a job, a nice apartment of her own, a happy family, and a bright future ahead. In 2015 they fled from Donetsk to russia, along with my grandmother. Why to russia? Propaganda. Then they got russian citizenship and used it to vote for putin. I asked how they could vote for him after what he did to them, after they lost it all. "We're thankful he gave us a home, gave us citizenship," was the answer. At first, he took everything from you, ruined your life, then let you restore a tiny bit of it - and you're grateful. I don't know how this works. It's not like they were welcomed in russia, they faced a lot of prejudice and oppression for being from Donetsk. To the point that my cousin was bullied at school for being from the Donbas, not only by kids but by teachers, despite being an excellent student and graduating with honors. Russians are outraged that their state "rescues" and "helps" those Donbas khokhols instead of helping "true" russians.

In the second month of the full-scale invasion, my grandmother proposed that I move to them, to the moscow region of russia. "This is the country that is trying to kill us all, how can you ask me to move there?" "What difference does it make which country to live in? It's safe here." So along with pro-putin brainrot comes also apoliticalness, passivity.

I'm rambling at this point. I don't want to go on about this forever, like I know I can. Let's leave it at this.

[acti-veg]

do you support a one or two state solution? what is the difference between the two?

The one-state solution generally advocates merging Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into a single state. Some favour creating a single democratic country, where Arab Muslims would outnumber Jews, thus ending the Zionist project of Israel as a Jewish state. The other version involves Israel annexing the West Bank and either forcing out Palestinians, annihilating them or just denying them the right to vote or take part in civic life. A two-state solution is advocating that Israelis and Palestinians both have their own independent state, though the variations between different approaches on this one tend to be much wider. People argue over what the political arrangement would look like, where each state would end, UN membership etc.

I think that the ideal scenario would be a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians were both represented, under a fair democracy, with wealth redistributed and displaced Palestinians return home. The problem is that with things as they are now, because of the western support, wealth and military power Israel enjoys, practically speaking, the ‘one state’ would be Israel. Israel would likely keep its existing power structures and prejudices, Palestinians would be second class citizens, poor, very likely oppressed and with minimal representation.

For that reason, I’ve always advocated for a two-state solution under the terms of a return to something resembling armistice lines that were agreed at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I’d also want to see the return of Resolution 94, which stated that Palestinian refugees who wish to return to their homes should be allowed to do so. Israel would also need to fund the rebuilding of a prosperous Palestinian state.

I'll admit though, it is difficult to see how this could be agreed in practice. With Israel committing genocide in the region, they will create a whole new generation of terrorists, freedom fighters, and militants of all political stripes, who have been radicalised, orphaned, disenfranchised or displaced by the genocide. The IOF have all but ensured another century of conflict, even if the West does decide to withdraw their support of the genocide.

I really don't know what the right answer is, I just know that an immediate and permanent ceasefire, is required to even begin to figure it out. Which ever 'solution' you advocate for, any reasonable person will agree that there can never be an end to the conflict while Israel continues to torture, displace, execute and starve the Palestinian people. And not until the West stops supplying the IOF with arms and political support, either.

[madamepestilence]

2024 US Election Information

We have roughly 1 year until the 2024 US election. I've put in some research, and here are my conclusions.

TLDR for those of you who don't have time or focus: Cornel West (Democratic Socialist running as People's Party -> Green Party) is the ideal candidate to vote for - normally I wouldn't advocate voting third party, but we may actually have a shot for once, and he has excellent policies. Jill Stein (Green Party) is a potential backup, though if West drops out, our best option for Democratic party is Marianne Williamson.

Please spread this information, especially to residents of Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Detailed information under the cut.

Current Fascist and Republican Candidates

Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Asa Hutchinson, Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Ryan Binkley, and Doug Burgum.

I'm not going to entertain their details, but I will note that the information I picked up while being exposed to alt-right communities from the inside via my fascist parents earlier this year shows strong evidence that Republicans are likely going to split between Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis (viewed as a betrayal by Trump supporters), and openly fascist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (I'll cover him later).

My guess is a 6/3/1 Republican vote split between Trump/DeSantis/Kennedy, Jr..

Current Democratic Candidates

Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson, and Dean Philips.

Biden has overall failed to complete the majority of his campaign promises, and has been directly supporting Israel during the genocide of Palestine, as well as deferring to Republicans to be "bipartisan" (I don't think I have to stress enough that a bipartisan democrat is not a democrat) - do not vote for him.

Williamson is a high-school educated 71-year-old author from Los Angeles, California. She is known for being Oprah Winfrey's, "spiritual advisor," (double red flag), and dropped out during the 2020 election (another red flag).

While she supports the reinstatement of Roe v. Wade, the decriminalization of cannabis and psychedelic drugs, the reduction of CO2, and moving to 100% renewable energy by 2035, her advocacy for the outright banning of assault and semi-assault weapons for civilians without military reform of the same is a slight red flag when combined with her relationship with Oprah Winfrey (an Obama supporter, the president who authorized quite a lot of drone strikes in West Asia) and drop-out makes her not a great candidate.

Philips is a Bachelor's (Brown University) and Master's Business (University of Minnesota) educated 54-year-old three-term congressman who is noted for criticizing Biden running for a second term on account of both political moderacy and medical concerns.

Philips unfortunately wants to increase police funding for some reason, but advocated for better training, including mental health training. He also advocates for what he calls, "comprehensive immigration reform," in the form of increased border security and streamlining legal entry (this ignores the problem outlined by the UN that people seeking asylum are likely to have to enter a country illegally before they can seek support), and the only real good stance he has is giving reproductive rights to patients, rather than politicians.

Philips is essentially a moderate Republican, and is a bad candidate. Do not vote for him.

Current Independent Candidates

Fascist (not his stated political stance, but it's what he is)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a fascist that has openly quoted Nazi propaganda in his political campaigns, is an anti-vaccine activist, and has spread anti-science conspiracy theories such as vaccines causing autism and the non-existence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. I cannot stress this enough, do not fucking vote for Kennedy, Jr.

Democratic Socialist

Cornel West is a Bachelor's (Harvard University), Master's, and Ph.D. (both Princeton University) educated 70-year-old progressive activist that switched his running party from the People's Party to the Green Party, despite being a both public- and self-described democratic socialist.

When asked why he wasn't running as a Democrat against Biden, he stated that, "Neither party is speaking to the pressing needs of poor and working people."

His party plans are a wealth tax on the rich, a national $27 minimum wage, a federal Universal Basic Income, 6 months of paid family leave, a 4-day work week, national free Pre-K childcare, "Immediate cessation of all oil and gas leasing projects on federal lands and waters," "Federal moratorium on fracking, carbon capture, and direct air capture technologies, geoengineering, and other false climate solutions," putting abortion rights in the Constitution, and nationalized healthcare.

Here's where I want to lay out something important. I normally wouldn't advocate for voting for a third party candidate due to the Spoiler Effect, but

Considering the United States' Democratic majority, popular vote records showing a common Republican minority, the absolutely incredible policies West stands for,

The growing support for third parties in the United States, and his policies aligning with public opinion,

Cornel West is the ideal candidate to vote for. Spread this information like wildfire - we may have one shot at the first third party win in US history in the upcoming 2024 election, and

If successful the dominant parties will be Fascist vs. Socialist, denying most, if not all, future Republican wins.

Our target toss-up states are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

Converting Texas to third party, or even just Democrat, will throw the Republican vote entirely and all but guarantee a Democrat, or hopefully third party, 2024 election win,

Which is absolutely possible, as Texas is majority Democrat and wins Republican votes via gerrymandering despite public opinion, which is why it swings occasionally.

Democrat states also need to be switched to majority third party votes, with particular emphasis on California, New York, and Illinois.

GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR CORNEL WEST!

Reference map of polling for the future 2024 election:

Libertarian (slightly Conservative to alt-right, really depends on the person)

Chase Oliver is a surprisingly progressive high school educated 38-year-old anti-war Libertarian that left the Democratic party after witnessing Obama's aggressive anti-West Asian war policies who has expressed desires for criminal justice reform and ending wars abroad, though hasn't elaborated on either.

Green Party

Jill Stein is a Bachelor's (Harvard University) and Medical (Harvard Medical University) 73-year-old Jewish doctor who previously ran for and represented the Green-Rainbow Party as the governor of Massachusetts.

Stein is notable for being an activist and protestor who has both protested outside buildings and testified before legislative and other government bodies against coal plants, mercury leaks, and unclean and unsafe groundwater.

Presumably, her stances will focus on environmental protections, trans rights, and Jewish protections, making her a potential alternative should West drop out.

Conclusions:

Again, don't fucking vote for Trump, Haley, Ramaswamy, Hutchinson, Scott, DeSantis, Christie, Binkley, Burgum, Biden, Philips, or Kennedy, Jr..

Our potential backup Democratic candidate is Williamson.

The ideal candidate is West, with Stein as a viable backup.

As absurd as it sounds, I want you to vote third party for Cornel West.

If you want a wealth tax on the rich, a national $27 minimum wage, a federal Universal Basic Income,

6 months of paid family leave, a 4-day work week, national free Pre-K childcare,

"Immediate cessation of all oil and gas leasing projects on federal lands and waters," "Federal moratorium on fracking, carbon capture, and direct air capture technologies, geoengineering, and other false climate solutions,"

putting abortion rights in the Constitution, and nationalized healthcare,

VOTE FOR CORNEL WEST AND GET OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME.

WE HAVE A CHANCE AT THE FIRST THIRD PARTY WIN IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE DENIAL OF FUTURE REPUBLICAN WINS.

[54625]

Ur one of my favorite fitpac posters! Out of curiosity, do you have a favorite fitpac moment?

Thank you for this ask!

At the risk of sounding a little basic, I might have to say the first time Pac gave Fit those roses (the one that spawned their first unofficial date). It's such an iconic moment because even though there had been a noticeable amount of flirting beforehand, it was the definitive moment that birthed the ship, and it's "calling cards"; establishing the roses and Starbobby as their things. I remember watching live at the time and being so pleasantly caught off guard by it, and genuinely thrilled when they went on that little date immediately afterwards. It's crazy now to look back on that little serendipitous moment and realise how none of us (neither the viewers nor Fit and Pac themselves) had any idea what it would evolve into.

Of course it's far from my only favourite fitpac moment, just the most standout-ish. I'm a sucker for people just spending quality time and having fun, and when I think of my other favourite moments between them two I'll usually default to moments of them being goofy together. That quaint little lasso moment at the Mexican independence day event is an all-timer for me. Just Pac being mischievous and joking around and making Fit giggle really hard as soon as he realised what he was doing.

As well as Pac putting up those images in the presidential office and Fit stumbling upon him and joining in without a word (other than passa tuudooo), them being all dramatic about each other at the prison therapy session, them both subtly trying to get eachother to teleport to the rebellion base before meeting eachother there and bursting out laughing, Fit egging on Pac to apologise for "trying to kill him" in purgatory (despite definitely knowing full well he didn't, that smirk said it all), Fit saying he'll vote for whatever mod Pac wanted added and Pac thanking him profusely while trying not to laugh at Tubbo gagging in the background, Fit spying on Pac from round a corner in the museum for like a full three minutes without Pac noticing at all, that one time the two of them were climbing a fed building and Pac fell off and delivered a perfectly cut scream from Fit's POV, the list goes on and on and on.

I miss them, man. Fuck .

[pomefioredove]

Hi Dove! Hope you are doing well!✨️ I've come back to life just to say that I was reading your posts about Rook and his glow up in Pomefiore and I wanted to jump on the (late) train real quick.

I couldn't agree more with all you said.

Sure, Savanaclaw Rook is a different way to see him and a complete new and interesting way to imagine him, but saying that Vil "ruined" him is a bit too much. I don't know about the story behind the card because I'm not on the jp server, but it's clearly visible just by looking at the art.

He is the literal definition of a diamond in the rough. And Vil saw the potential he could become. He didn't "change" him, he gave him the opportunity to become a better version of himself.

Even just by looking at his eyes: it's clear that it's one of Rook's best traits, but in the Savanaclaw card they are not as noticeable, but Vil accentuated them with the makeup.

Also, let's be real, Vil may be his dorm leader and someone he admires, but he could never have control over Rook. I mean, Rook? THE Rook "I'm gonna vote against my team in the SDC because I think it's the right thing to do" Hunt?

Anyways, I'll return to the shadows to silently read all your posts (which are all amazing) and hoarding gems for Rook's new year card, remember to drink water and get your beauty sleep✨️

-🔥

pomefiore haters give me hives actually. literally every time I read a rook voiceline or vignette it's like... blatantly obvious that he's completely independent and has his own thoughts and wants and feelings. he basically just hangs out with vil because he likes him. same with epel. same with leona. same with yuu??? he's all over the place. he literally just follows his dreams <3 and I love that for him!!

"vil ruined rook!!" god I wish vil would ruin me too. how's that

[ballinandcantgetup452]

Terry McGinnis is the only person who can be the next Batman

I don't normally make hard statements like this. I typically hate it when somebody makes hard statements like this, but hear me out.

No prior Batfamily character can be the next Batman. I'll keep it brief and explain why going person by person (obvious headcanon warning)

Dick is definitely a likelier candidate than most. He can cover for Batman if the need ever arises. But I believe that Dick Grayson hates the idea of actually becoming Batman. He can play the role. He was a circus kid and he's got the heart of a theatre kid, he can play the role all day long. But he was the first. He arguably saw Batman at his natural worst. He and Alfred, anyways. I'm going to drop some OP lore to further elaborate. My dad's a pastor. He's a really good pastor. He's a good man, and he may be an ass, but that's because I know him as "dad". For YEARS, people would tell me that I was just like him, and for a long time, I wanted to be him. It's what boys do when their dad is at the very least decent. But, as I got older, I saw the tapestry and saw the flaws. I saw how tired being a pastor made my dad. I saw how much of his life being a pastor was taking up. I would never tell my dad to stop being a pastor, because that's him. That's his calling; and if he was anything else, then he'd be a soulless, husk of a man. But I've seen what being a pastor does to you, and I don't want that. I want to be better than that. Dick Grayson has seen what The Batman does to a person. He's seen Bruce do things that Dick would never do, and the idea of being the next Batman is something that got soured to him. And it definitely doesn't help that that's what a lot of people used to do to him. So yeah, traumadumping aside, Dick would never STAY Batman. Even if he doesn't know it.

I honestly think it's best if Jason stays as far away from the idea of The Batman legacy as possible. Jason's at the best possible spot right now. He's taken his trauma and has turned it into his empowerment. I don't care what Three Jokers says, that's dumb. Joker's an ass, we don't listen to him. ESPECIALLY if he's swapped out his gun for a crowbar and has a no-kill rule, Jason could be Red Hood until he's 90 and it'll be narratively fulfilling.

Tim is one I see get thrown around a lot. However, I believe that The Batman would absolutely DESTROY him and he would be too stubborn to acknowledge it. One common denominator I believe every Robin goes through is the realization of "oh wow, Bruce is not okay" and trying to be better than that. While I do believe that Tim went through that, I also believe that Tim is arrogant enough to believe that he's better than that. Even putting all of the "alternate Tim evil gun toting Batman" futures aside, I think that Tim is obsessive enough as is. Giving him the mantle of The Batman would cause him to obsess even more to be like Bruce thus causing ANOTHER evil gun toting alternate future Batman. Tim is best as Red Robin. An independent agent that can go well with ANY Batman to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Babs is best as Oracle. No I will not be elaborating. If you want her to be Batgirl, then say that she can Batgirl every once and a while but doing it stresses out the microchip in her back.

Steph is best as Spoiler. She backdoored her way into the Batfamily by being competent enough as Spoiler. I honestly wish that she could be like Batwoman and establish herself as Batfamily adjacent and have her own supporting cast and such. If she does have one, then I'm sorry. Cassie is kind of a blind spot.

Sadly, Cassandra Cain, Duke Thomas, and Harper Row are even bigger blindspots of mine. From what I've seen of them, I can't think of any reasons they couldn't be Batman. However, I can't think of any reasons why they especially should be Batman.

Damian Wayne is my personal vote for becoming the next Batman out of everybody pre established. Not for any birthright reasons. That's dumb. Admittedly, DCeased really turned me on to the idea. I think that the idea of Damian being the child raised by Bruce that turned out the best is a really good idea. In retrospect, I guess the idea of birthright is technically why I'm choosing Damian. BUT, understand I'm doing it with the caveat that Damian is fully developed as a person and as a character. That is the END of his arc.

HOWEVER, Terry McGinnis takes the cake for me in terms of Batman successor. This is going off of the idea that he isn't a Bruce clone. I don't know how canon we've made that, but canon is relative, so I'm saying it's not for the sake of argument. Terry is an outsider. He has no baggage with the idea of The Batman. He's just a guy working through some grief with The Batman being used as a vehicle. He doesn't know any of the Bruceisms. He never had to explain to his friends that his dad is crazy and he's sorry he made contingency plans for all of them. Terry McGinnis gets to make Batman his own. And, luckily, he gets to have a fully realized Bruce to guide him along the way. I also think that it opens so much more story potential. It's essentially a soft reboot for The Batman as an idea. Everybody else can be out doing their own thing. But I think this works in the same way that Miguel O'Hara can ALSO be Spider-Man. I believe that every intimate Batfamily member would follow Bruce's footsteps by making Batman an UNHEALTHY obsession. Terry would be different, he'd lead the pack by turning The Batman into something HEALTHY.

Or maybe I don't read enough comics and all my interpretations are super surface level. Let me know. I'm willing to be wrong.

[matan4il]

Thank you for your daily updates.

I've been seeing people discussing why/not the ICJ case is valid, but nothing on how the judges are likely to rule, a discussion that happens often when there is a big SCOTUS case.

What of their temperaments? Sure there's a Lebanese judge, that doesn't inherently make him antisemitic. Do you know if the judges are more "left" or "right?" My hopes are not high, considering they refuse to see evidence of the actual Oct 7 massacres (shame, since Hamas really wanted that broadcasted).

Hi Nonnie,

I usually try to reply to asks at the same order I got them, but I'll make an exception, because of how relevant this is to the current proceedings at the ICJ right now.

I don't think that being Muslim makes anyone inherently biased, nor do I think being Jewish means a person is free of the antisemitism of their environment, so I generally believe it's impossible for judges to be completely disconnected from what their country's position is. I believe the ICJ recognizes this as well, and that's why, a country that is suing or sued at the ICJ without having a representation among the permanent judges, has the right to appoint one. Specifically when it comes to Lebanon, I have to admit that IDK how possible it is for the Lebanese judge to ignore the fact that his country has for decades implemented an actual apartheid, a legally imposed policy of discrimination against Palestinians who live there.

Well, for this trial, we have an Israeli judge, a SA judge, and the 15 permanent judges. Here's one analysis about the 15 that I read:

American judge: had worked as a legal advisor to the administrations of Clinton and Obama, believes the scope of international law is limited (so she's less likely to grant SA a provisional measure that's a legal precedent).

Russian judge: advises Russia on two legal matters (regarding Georgia, and Kosovo), believes the scope of international law should be wider, has voted against demanding of Russia to stop the military operation in Ukraine, and has published independently his opinion that the ICJ has no right to judge the Russia-Ukraine conflict, because Russia didn't recognize its authority on this. Has visited Israel in 2015 for an international space conference, and together with 2 other ICJ judges, has conducted a "trial" regarding space law.

Slovak judge: sees the scope of international law as narrower, in the past he indicated that he thinks the crime of committing a genocide can't be decided in this court (that it should be in a criminal one), he has also said that quotes uttered in "the heat of battle" (the kind at the basis of SA's lawsuit) are not indicative of policy intent, they're just war propaganda. Has visited Israel in 2015 for an international space conference, and together with 2 other ICJ judges, has conducted a "trial" regarding space law.

French judge: Jewish, considered critical of Israel. In the past, while arguing against Israel, he has also said that the conflict here is political by nature and that the involvement of the ICJ in it is unhelpful to dialogue between the parties.

Moroccan judge: in the past, his decisions included non-legal considerations (for example, he said he's not sure Ukraine's move against Russia fits the convention on the prevention of genocide, but he still was in favor of granting Ukraine the provisional measures it was asking for). He was also a minority vote in the matter of whether the Serbs committed a genocide against the Bosnian Muslims, where the majority determined that the conditions to define it as such were not met.

Somali judge: there are no past indications of how he might rule from an international law perspective. He's Muslim, but in the past he has joined an Iftar dinner at the home of the Israeli ambassador at the Hague, and has also once opened a Holocaust Day lecture for the ICJ.

Chinese judge: has worked for her government in the past. She has voted against the provisional measures Ukraine has asked for against Russia, saying that it seems like an attempt to use the convention in order to get the ICJ to decide in broader political matters than the convention allows for. She has also argued against provisional measures that only demand one side would stop the fighting.

Ugandan judge: has worked for her government in the past. There are no past indications of how she might rule from an international law perspective.

Indian judge: tends towards an expanded view of what is discrimination. Has visited Israel in 2015 for an international space conference, and together with 2 other ICJ judges, has conducted a "trial" regarding space law.

Jamaican judge: has worked for his government in the past. Has voted against Russia when it came to the provisional measures demanding it stops its fighting against Ukraine.

Lebanese judge: has expressed anti-Israel views in the past, and has also repeatedly shown that he takes his country's position into account in his decisions. Has argued in the past that in situations of military occupation, the burden of proof is very low, or that the burden of proof should be on the occupier.

German judge: in the past, he has published his opposition to an Israeli law professor's article, arguing that a wider view is required when it comes to the right to self defense.

Japanese judge: in the past, he has published an article that sees the right of third party countries to appear before the ICJ (as is SA in this case) as limited.

Australian judge: very active in the field of women and gender rights. In the past, she has criticized ICJ rulings that allowed the coalition forces a lot of freedom in Iraq.

Brazilian judge: in the past, he has referred to the PLO as a terrorist organization (at the time about which he was writing), but he did the same regarding the Jewish underground movement, the Hagana (which worked to protect Jews, and to smuggle them "illegally" into the Land of Israel to save them from the Nazis during WWII).

According to one legal correspondent that I listened to, SA has asked for so many provisional measures, that the ICJ is unlikely to turn them all down. This reporter believes that the ICJ will likely not grant the provisional measure calling on Israel to stop the fighting, but it will probably grant at least two other provisional measures. She had a bet which two, the provisional measure calling on more humanitarian aid to be brought into Gaza (if true, this would be so redundant. One of the points made at the ICJ proceedings, was that Israel has agreed to allow in as much humanitarian aid as could be taken in on the Gazan side, and was willing to expand its operations on the Israeli side for this to happen. In other words, what's currently limiting the amount of aid going in is the capacity to handle it on the Gazan, not Israeli, side), and to collect evidence regarding the fighting in Gaza (which Israel is already doing).

I hope this helped! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)