I remember watching the news interviews at the time, and some of the people who voted to Exit said they didn’t really want to Exit they just wanted to put out a protest vote against Corbyn.

You are literally talking out of your arse. “Some” people may have been protesting Corbyn… not saying much?.. about it. But Cameron was the face of remain. He was the logical target for a protest vote. And if you really did watch the interviews around the time of Brexit and especially the exit polls after the election you would know that most people said some nonsense about “sovereignty” but the next most common and incredibly obvious reason was immigration. The idea that is was primarily or even substantially about Corbyn is completely ludicrous.

So go ahead and single issue vote on something that will get you more of what you don’t want.

1. I am actually British. 2. I would vote for Harris and have literally said as much throughout this conversation.

I am just saying I understand their perspective and pointing out that this “Trump is worse” response completely ignores the overwhelming moral case for opposing a genocide. It is pathetic as a response to what people are saying. It’s myopically election focused at a time when people are dying with full US backing.

Yes, Clinton was a shitty candidate who I predicted losing because everyone hates her so much… but in the end there were a lot of people who are now worse off because they decided it would be better to vote for Stein.

So you predicted she would lose, and many other people did, and the DNC did not listen. Then some people didn’t see the gravity of the situation and made bad voting decisions, absolutely. But they are just random people who may be more engaged with work and paying their bills than they are with making unintuitive voting decisions. Partially their fault, mainly the dems fault

Yeah but when the single issue is genocide? I don’t know, I can understand the moral argument that is always wrong to support that. I can understand not wanting your tax dollars to pay for the death and destruction we’ve been watching for the past year.

I understand your point, don’t agree with single issue voting in most cases and I also wouldn’t vote third party or encourage anyone to do so BUT I can see the point and lecturing people about Trump does nothing whatsoever to address it.

Look at Brexit: most of those were protest votes against Labour, not actual votes for Brexit.

Lol I can only assume you are not British. Protesting Labour in the 6th year of a conservative government for… what exactly? There are a lot of stupid things that led to the Brexit vote but this is not one of them.

Every pregnant woman in the US is at higher risk now because of those protest votes.

No. Because the democrats did not win over enough voters to take the presidency. They ran a candidate people didn’t like that much and lost. That is on THEM.

Yeah I wouldn’t say alarmist but this is likely a non issue. Under the current system, every legal state is breaking federal law in a bunch of ways, but the DEA and other agencies have not acted. Technically putting it in schedule III would mean it could be treated like other substances in that schedule, available only with FDA oversight, but that is not likely. Basically everything has been totally hands off so far, so it’s very unlikely that the government reducing the level of control of cannabis would lead to agencies increasing their control.

The biggest threat at the moment imo is a Trump presidency, but based on his comments about Florida’s ballot initiative, his “change with the wind” opinion is currently also in favor of not sending people to jail for it.

Ha stupid Palestinians not wanting to vote for someone who promised to continue arming the state that is killing their families! Wow what idiots. Do they want a Trump presidency? What dumb dumbs, they clearly don’t understand democracy: you vote for us otherwise it’ll get even worse.

Pressuring their preferred candidate to change their policies by saying they’ll vote third party because of this issue? NO! The only way is slavish loyalty, that way they’ll know they can do what they want and it won’t affect their vote share.

Jokes aside: I do think Harris is better on this issue (and people should still vote for her) but surely you can see how this disingenuous criticism really side steps the issue. What if it was your family, so you tried to push change on this issue with your only tangible democratic power and then some jumped up boot licker starts lecturing you on how this is actually stupid because the other guy will kill your family FASTER? I would tell that person to fuck all the way off.

Yeah my understanding is that since HHS said “the science suggests it should be in 3,” the DEA would have a bit of a challenge making any other rule. The schedules (theoretically) tell you what the addiction risk and medical value of a substance is, with lower risk & more effective medicine being the least restricted. So since HHS made that determination and the DEA are not scientists, it would be kind of wild for them to try to argue with that.

I think technically they could propose anything they like, but 2 would never go through because there’s no basis for it, and I think even keeping it in 1 would be a difficult sell with Biden having called for the review and the recommendation being what it was. Plus as you said most public comments (and experts) said they didn’t go far enough.

Honestly I think they’re stuck. They probably can’t just come out and recommend descheduling (and going by public statements probably don’t want to) but the current position is untenable. So they have to just sign up for the “better but nobody is especially happy” option HHS gave them

One thing I wish I understood more was whether Harris could just legalize through an executive order. Biden (and now Harris) said nobody should go to jail for weed but schedule III does not solve that problem at all.

all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why

I figure you’re partially joking but they can’t really make it 2. The HHS recommendation was 3 and even the DEA kind of has to agree even if they don’t want to. It would have been super controversial to do something else, they’re mainly supposed to follow it through with the rulemaking process unless they’re willing to make a serious case. And even then it would probably be to leave it where it is.

One of the theories going around as to why they added the hearing is that they wanted to take the heat off themselves for the call they’ve made by really drawing out the public consultation. Like people will be mad at them for following the recommendation so they want to make a big show of the fact they’re listening to concerns etc.

Hopefully Harris can take some stronger action or legalize through executive order or something. Schedule III is better but it’s then in the same class as ketamine. No judgement of people who like ketamine but COME ON

But it says nothing about methods of attack?

Edit: The article suggests they are air strikes: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/9/25/mapping-10000-cross-border-attacks-between-israel-and-lebanon

Happy to see a source if I’m wrong!

Lol what? Where did you get that?

Uh huh. So no defense of what’s happening, just “that’s the way it is.” Well great. No problem then

So because Iran and Israel have nukes, Israel can’t directly fight their enemy, and that means they have to keep playing whack a mole with proxies, like, forever? All while the “collateral damage” and “accidents” are mounting and more and more innocent people die?

There will always be new “moles” popping up, eliminating Hamas creates Hamas 2 and even if you somehow eliminate Hezbollah there will be Hezbollah 2: maximum bollah. Then you will have to fight them and there will be more whoopsies and more kids end up in bodybags. And then I hope you’re ready because since we’re not fighting the actual enemy but we successfully stopped Hamas 2, guess what we have now?

Seriously. The only result of this is death and the most likely people to die are innocent Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli citizens.

I think Iran should stop funding terrorists.

They won’t. So yet again, do you think Israel should go to war with Iran? Why waste time fighting proxies?

So do you think Israel should go to war with Iran? Or are you happy with innocent Palestinians and Lebanese paying the price instead?

But I will say, when Israel does something, the blame lies with Israel. The blood of the dead is on Israel’s hands and it will never wash off.

The Guardian is a good source!

Are you addressing this comment to people who think Iran is… good? You’re right that they are not nice.

I think I understand your point: Iran is just in it to hurt Israel and doesn’t actually care about Palestinians.

But then isn’t the enemy Iran? How is killing some Lebanese child alongside a “terrorist” going to stop the next attack? Iran will just continue funding, surely? Probably with more willing recruits.

Obviously nobody wants war with Iran, I get that. So, and I know this is crazy, but maybe this is a problem you can’t murder your way out of? Just an idea.

He is a coward. He got off easy with Biden taking the attention away from him, but at the Harris debate, his stupidity and ignorance was on full display for everybody to see. He would embarrass himself again and he knows it.

She should get the air time even if Trump is too much of a coward to show up. Let him seethe about it.

What do you mean?

Literally. Many people seem to have forgotten all the lessons from 9/11 and the clusterfuck that followed

The genocidiers have us by the balls, folks. Nothing you can do but voice your full throated support for one of them.

Not only that, you must also shout down anybody who says they don’t want to support genocide. Only full loyalty is acceptable.

Oh so you’re likely voting dem anyway because you aren’t stupid and/or racist but you also say Harris should abide by US law and stop arms sales to Israel? WOW LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A TRUMP SUPPORTER HERE BOYS

You will likely get the accusations anywhere you are omitting the part about voting for Harris despite opposing an endorsement.

Yeah absolutely. But I don’t really see why anyone should need to add a voting disclaimer if they are criticising the government’s support for a genocide. People can downvote all they want, some things are just more important than party politics.

That is due to the prolific MAGA campaigners on here urging people to vote third party and using this issue as the reason.

Yeah I’m sure there are such people and they can get fucked. But in my experience the people receiving these accusations mainly just don’t want the government to support Israel unconditionally. But as you said, without the disclaimer, these people are accused of a bunch of stuff.

Is it really so hard for people to believe that others actually just care about preventing mass murder? The fact someone can say something like that and get many responses talking about Trump and the electoral college system rather than acknowledging the legitimacy of the problem being raised is truly disgusting to me.