I think here he is thinking of “finish” in the sense of “finishing off”, not in the sense of “finishing up with”. He is not wishing for Israel to “solve” the issue, he is calling for them to kill all Palestinians.
I think it’s supposed to be vague enough that they can tell “moderates” it means “finish the conflict” but the MAGAs understand it as “final solution.”
I don’t think he walks in there with notecards, no. I think he’s in the habit of trying to talk like Stringer Bell about things after decades of being a modestly successful white collar criminal. I think that at this point answering questions with vague phrases isn’t a conscious strategy so much as just part of who he is.
The quote is “You have to finish the problem,”. English is inexact but it seems clear to my reading that Trump means exterminating Palestinians or at least Hamas.
It’s just an awkward rephrasing to avoid the words “final solution”, which is what he really wanted to say, but that’s still a bit too mask off for now.
I’ve asked it before, but I wonder how Hitler would react to Israel. Probably be beaming with pride, like a master does when their apprentice surpasses them. I imagine when Netanyahu finally shuffles his way off this mortal coil, and his soul goes wherever Hitler’s is, Adolf will probably shake his hand.
You’re wrong about the border. One of his main shticks is immigrates invading the country over the southern border. If they passed the border bill, and Biden shut down the border, he loses a huge talking point with his base and a huge fear of theirs that he can prey on.
He didn’t block it because Democrats were for it, he blocked it because he doesn’t actually care about protecting his base from any invasion, he cares only about himself.
You’ll see that he’ll keep talking about the border.
He didn’t block it because Democrats were for it, he blocked it because he doesn’t actually care about protecting his base from any invasion, he cares only about himself.
That’s a lot of words to say that trump tanked the border deal because the Democrats were ok with it.
No, it’s saying he tanked it because he wants to border to be open because he believe it helps him win.
Hell, the Democrats aren’t even “for it” it was just compromise…or really I think it was a political move to take that away from trump and get what they think is important (support for Ukraine).
Again, just watch, he’ll hammer on the border over and over again during the general election. At that point will you admit I’m right?
No, I’m not saying that. Feel free to read my clarification again.
(Edit) Sorry thought this was in the same chain. No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying he wants the border open because he thinks it helps him win. he isn’t vocally against border security now, he’ll continue to hammer away at it because its red meat for his base. He’s against it getting closed because then he can’t hammer away at it.
Except he’s going to continue to harp on border security. He isn’t taking the position because he just does the opposite of the Dems, he blocked it because it takes away a talking point. Now he can and will continue to talk about it. He didn’t even change his position.
I’m really torn on this one. On the one hand, Republicans ALWAYS take the exact opposite stance of Democrats so they can set up the argument as “Democrats bad” but on the other hand Trump is such a massive pile of shit that he would totally be for “bombing dark skinned people” just because.
It’s at least in part Russian propaganda. They don’t want people to vote for Trump, they do want democratic voters to not vote at all, which will help Trump get elected.
Look at the people pushing the ‘genocide Joe’ thing. Invariably they’re anti-NATO and make excuses for Iran, Syria and Russia. Not that they’re doing it deliberately, but plenty seem to have bought the propaganda and are acting like useful idiots by spreading it.
But you’ll use that as the excuse every time someone says they won’t be voting for Biden right?
The problem you run into with this excuse is regardless of where the ideas are coming from or who is amplifying them you and many others are clearly concerned about the upcoming election. Biden won the 2020 general election so that means you’re worried there are people who voted for Biden in the 2020 general election and won’t vote for him in 2024. If they’re leftists or progressives that means staying home, voting 3rd party or writing in.
So here’s a crazy idea: find a compromise. Leftists and progressives have raised multiple reasons they are frustrated or even angry at Biden. Why not yield to some of those objections? Frankly, the fact that discussions about giving progressive and leftist voters what they want in order to gain votes get so heavily down voted feels like the real PsyOP. Especially when the people downvoting simultaneously talk about the wonders of democracy and compromise. Here’s just a few ideas Biden could do today:
Biden has been providing Israel weapons without congressional approval. That means he could stop. Today. Do that.
Biden blocked the rail strike by forcing a contract unions had voted against down their throat. That contract expires at the end of this year meaning they could strike again in 2025. Biden could promise to veto any attempts to block a rail strike in his next term.
Biden forced federal workers back to the office. He could reverse that.
Biden could publicly shame Powell and Yellen for attacking American worker wages.
It’s hard to take people seriously when they talk about how important democracy is but sneer at the very idea of sacrificing any policy positions in order to court voters sitting to the left of Biden.
Without taking a position on what you’re saying, do you think it’s at all possible that making those choices could lose more voters than they’d gain? I honestly don’t know, but changing a position on any issue runs the risk of losing votes as well.
Anytime someone goes to name calling I assume they are a bad actor. We can have a serious discussion on the matter without devolving into name calling so I just assume they are trying to sew discord more than anything else.
It’s fine I guess, I’m not a Russian or Chinese shill lmao. I guess I was technically a social democrat, then I thought humanity would be okay in small tribal communes, but now I think humanity should go extinct in order to save the remaining animals we haven’t already driven to extinction. For sciences sake.
So you do realize that’s worse than Hitler right? Your “noble cause” requires humanity to be exterminated, Hitler just wanted a “perfect race” of humans. Even if it’s not by your hand or directed by you, you want the elimination of the entire human species.
There are some days where I’m in that camp too lol
Yeah I don’t think it should be an extermination, I know there are others like me called the voluntary extinction movement or something. I think intelligent people can see the writing on the wall that we’ve passed an important climate tipping point in 2023, I’m lucky I didn’t already have kids, but I’m getting a vasectomy.
Humanity has driven 70% of all species to extinction in the 250,000 years we’ve been around. 150 species a day. How many megafauna did we permanently erase before we even developed the written word? I think if we burn ourselves out before we spread to other planets or solar systems, said places are lucky.
That’s the easy way out. Please stick around and help the rest of us try to steer humanity in the right direction. Help the moral arc of the universe bend a little faster. It’s hard work, and most of us won’t see much of a return. But long-term, let’s hope that humanity can.
To clarify: I’m a biologist. The perspective you’ve taken is basically “Noble Savage” but for animals. Animals are pushed to extinction all the time. Yes, we’re incredibly good at it, and we’re good at coming up with highfalutin reasons for killing things, but look at chimps, ants, dolphins…nature is brutal. It sucks to be most animals. Say a habitat changes, and a species “needs” to move into an adjacent similar habitat that’s already occupied by one or more species exploiting those resources? Extinction of something is pretty likely. That’s all very much an oversimplification, of course, but this is a lemmy comment.
If we found an organism that drives 150 species extinct a day what would we do with it? Put aside your human exceptionalism for a second and think about it.
That’s entirely my point though: we can’t reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don’t think it’s logical to throw in the towel.
That isn’t human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don’t believe we’re inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn’t eradicate biological life…or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn’t improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That’s my point: not that we don’t deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.
Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They’re pretty chill, all things considered.
There are no organisms to compare with how destructive/exploitive humans are to the other species/resources around them. It makes more sense to compare humanity to extinction events like super volcanoes and large meteor impacts. And we’re not even through the worst of the climate catastrophe that we’re still accelerating into, let along slowing or reversing.
I respect your take, and I appreciate your well meaning.
Thanks, I respect your take too. I fully understand that I’m an optimist, and will desperately cling to any shred of hope we have. Not a position everyone holds, and I don’t hold it against anyone to not have hope for humanity’s future, as much as it conflicts with my own thoughts. In any case, I hope you have a good one! Thanks for a good discussion.
no one is threatening to vote for Trump because of biden’s genocidal proclivities. since nobody’s doing that, none of them can be Russian agents. you made this up.
It’s at least in part Russian propaganda. They don’t want people to vote for Trump, they do want democratic voters to not vote at all, which will help Trump get elected.
Way to ignore the entire point of the person you responded to.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were “challenging it” by ignoring the actual point and making up something else to respond to. My mistake, I’ll have to learn alternative definitions for words.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were “challenging it” by ignoring the actual poin
the actual point is that they claimed there is a russian campaign to help trump’s performance in november on the basis of biden’s support for genocide. there is no evidence for this.
Just like there was no evidence during the 2016 or 2020 campaigns, but surely they’ve changed this election. If only there were any evidence of it happening this round, I’m sure you’d change your mind.
I mean, could you imagine if they had tried to drum up charges against the president’s family by getting an asset to be believed as a credible witness in a case against his family? Or if they were putting out deep fakes to make people think Biden said something he never did?
Just like there was no evidence during the 2016 or 2020 campaigns, but surely they’ve changed this election
this is innuendo. there is a specific claim being made about people who are objecting to joe’s genocide, and that claim simply isn’t supported by any evidence. your innuendo is slander.
could you imagine if they had tried to drum up charges against the president’s family by getting an asset to be believed as a credible witness in a case against his family? Or if they were putting out deep fakes to make people think Biden said something he never did?
that’s not the claim that’s being made or to which i’m objecting. i’m objecting to the characterization of leftists as russian propagandists.
What many of us imagine is that it’s bad when either nation does this.
Yes, it is hypocritical for most US politicians to criticize Russia’s interference in US elections, but it’s not incorrect.
It certainly isn’t wrongthink for those of us who have little influence on what alphabet agencies do to complain about it happening just because it’s happening elsewhere, too.
Thank you for explaining what your point was, but it’s absolutely a non sequitur. My original point was about the validity of criticizing something because it’s happening by more than one bad actor. Not quibbling about whether an small part of my statement (“little influence”) is 100% correct or not. My point wasn’t about litigating whether or not the US is a democracy, so: it was a non sequitur.
That said, it’s clearly a waste of time to engage with you, because if you’re going to be bent out of shape for being “accused” of a non sequitur and then start calling me “a schlub that lives in a fascist empire”, then you don’t have the temperament to actually fight a fascist empire. Some of us do more than vote and complain online.
I am not sure about your point. I think that we agree on this, but it sounds like you are making a counter argument.
If religion was the reason, then this genocide would happen everywhere and all the time.
You could argue that it does or at least did. But in this case and in most modern day cases. the true motives are not religion and genocides would have happened even if there was no religion. In the Israel Vs Hamas, the conflict is not religion. It is the right to exist Vs the right to land. Some may have used religion as a historic backdrop, but this has nothing to do with religion.
When Hamas members say that they want to genocide all the Jews they are saying it’s a religious thing. And they have been saying that for all my conscious life. Meanwhile Israel is motivated by religion to insure their God given territory is kept safe and are willing to genocide any group that threatens them. Both parties are motivated to use religion as an excuse for genocide. This is, at its very core a religious conflict.
If you think we agreed then you’re such a motivated thinker that you motivated yourself out of reading comprehension. Religion is an excuse for a lot of things in this world. But in this case it is the reason, not the excuse.
Not true. Basically, they want an end to the apartheid.
Is is a complicated history but even the Hamas founding charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. That’s a lie, and also intentionally ignores the 2017 Revised charter. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised version too. Hamas has committed atrocious acts, there’s no need to make things up about Hamas to show they’ve done terrible things. Ending the occupation and having a Palestinian election for the Palestinian people to choose their own leadership is the way to diminish support for Hamas and other Armed resistance groups. Further terrorizing the West Bank and Gaza will only increase their support, which has been shown historically not only within the Occupied Palestinian Territories but throughout history.
How many quotes from Hamas leaders saying they want to kill every jew would I need to supply before I could even get you to entertain that your position may not be correct?
Have Hamas leaders said antisemitic comments? Certainly, I’m sure some are genuinely antisemitic on top of being anti-zionist. That and their targeting of civilians has been a major reason for their lack of support by Palestinians historically.
Does that change the reality of the permanent occupation, or the apartheid laws, or the settler colonialism? No. Palestinians deserve basic human and civil rights. They deserve free and fair elections. How do you propose the conflict be resolved?
I want to be clear on my position so that you don’t argue against something else: I’m not arguing that Israel is in any way justified for their actions of apartheid or their retaliation.
I’m arguing Hamas isn’t going to be happy if the apartheid ends. They want not just the state of Israel destroyed but all Jews dead. Not a few members here or there but the super majority. Claiming that this is just about apartheid is pretending that there isn’t a genocidal goal. That predates the apartheid. It’s what caused Israel to start the apartheid in the first place. It’s a feedback loop. The tighter they squeeze the more martyrs they make. The less the squeeze the more they risk being genocided. It’s a no win situation. Until one side kills the other, per each’s own view of manifest destiny, this will not end.
The culmination of the apartheid is the expulsion of Palestinians from 1947, the martial law and military rule on the Palestinians within Israel proper since 1948, the decision to occupy and settle the west bank and Gaza strip in 1967, and the development of military control and maintenance of the apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to this day. Hamas emerged in 1988 from the first Intifada, after 21 years of Israeli Occupation. If there was no occupation, there wouldn’t be any resistance to occupation.
What do you mean it predates the apartheid? That’s a revisionist history of the founding of Israel. Perhaps you’re referencing the Azzam Pasha misquote (Haaretz on misquote) or the slogan From the river to the sea which is no call for genocide. Plus, there were no military plans by the Arab Legion either for genocide. In fact, Ben-Gurion and King Abdullah colluded to partition Palestinian territory. Maybe you mean The Grand Mufti and Nazi Propaganda Time, Haaretz, WaPo, yet he had quickly dwindling support after his explosion and visit to Nazi Germany. After all, 12,000 Palestinians fought against Nazi Germany in WWII: Haaretz, JPost, a magnitude more than his Personal Holy War Army.
While Ben-Gurion was advocating for partition to acquire as much palestinian land as possible, the Palestinian leadership repeatedly argued to a unitary binational state.
This rhetoric that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and apartheid are the fault of Palestinians out of self defense is a deliberate tactic to dehumanize Palestinians and justify the collective punishment and ongoing enthnic cleansing. Whether you know it or not.
If your intent is to give me hours worth of reading by link spamming then I have some bad news for you. I’m not reading all that.
Have you listened to season one of the Martyr Made Podcast? It does a pretty decent job of covering the early 20th century reinvention of Israel long before the 40s. And the baby steps of the apartheid in the later half of that century. Anyway, you keep avoiding my question so I’m going to assume you aren’t arguing in good faith. You have just one side you are willing to discuss and anything on the intent of the other side is something you dodge. You aren’t having a conversation. You are pushing an agenda. And I just don’t have time for that.
If you click the history link you’ll see even more sources about both sides of the conflict. You can look at any of the sources to learn more. If you want a genuine history of the conflict, I suggest you look at the works by new Historians Ilan Pappe, Rashid Khalidi, or Avi Shlaim. Why would I listen to a podcast over the works of actual Historians on the subject.
Genocide is neither the historical goal, the official goal, the stated goal of the Oct 7th attack, or within the means of Hamas. It’s a bad question. And it ignores the will of Palestinians too, which you can see from the polls I also linked.
What ethic since 1920 its 100% colonialism Israël is younger as a country than my grand father wtf. You dont immigrate thousand of people and steal territory by ethic.
Repatriation is the term. Jews do, after all, originate from Judea and Samaria. I hope you are not going to argue with that.
Modern state of Israel is younger, but there were Jewish states there in antique times destroyed by force. I hope you are not going to argue with that either.
These things said, that’s not quite the approach Israeli elites themselves take - they are exactly colonialist and proud of that, so probably that state should be cut down to something like “initial Zionist settlements plus Eilat with land connecting them and some farmland”, that’d still be quite viable as a state due to sea and technological development.
I am a lifelong atheist and disagree with this. Religion isn’t the problem, bad people are. Religion is a vehicle for bad people to harm those who are vulnerable.
Remember Trump isn’t on the democratic ballot. You can’t vote against him until November. Your only choice in the primaries is to vote for Biden or vote that you are here for the other progressive and democratic choices down ballot but Biden has to earn that commitment by doing something against his own personal desire to be a Zionist and instead help starving children get food.
Uncommitted doesn’t mean I’m never going to vote for Biden. It just means he has to earn it through action.
Oh I don’t doubt that the “uncommited” oppose Trump, too. The problem is the Genocide Joe rhetoric and other similar bullshit. You push that narrative and it may very well have lingering effects in Trump’s favor during the general election. Maybe in other elections it didnt matter quite as much, but this is Trump were talking about. Why do you and others like you not get that? Hello, knock, knock. Trump is fully embracing the Hitler playbook and aiming to be president of the Most Powerful Nation on Earth. And you want to bitch about Biden? At this moment…? SMH, it is your sort of fractious indiscipline and short-sightedness that allows fascism to gain power, laughing all the way at your stupidity and inability to mount a coherent defence of democracy. You think you have nothing to lose, but you do. Things can get much, much worse.
Exactly, some people will take this uncommitted thing all the way to the general election. Biden only won by a few hundred thousand votes in swing states. If you weaken enthusiasm in folks to come out for him, all it takes is a few hundred thousand to stay home and Trump will win. Not voting for Biden will elect Trump. You will be helping Trump. You will be electing Trump. And encouraging others to do the same just for fun in the primary is a dangerous game of chicken. You don’t play with loaded guns. Don’t play with the last election the United States may ever have.
Sure, but how many people are casting uncommitted or seeing how unpopular Biden is and are going to stay home in November because of it? My guess is not zero.
I get the protest and the timing, but it’s unclear if it’s really inoffensive in the general.
Then it sounds like Biden needs to take a firm anti-genocide stance to get those voters to actually vote, no? Do you think the number of Biden voters would decrease if Biden stopped the genocide?
Do you disagree with the statement that Biden taking an anti-genocide stance, rather than his current pro-genocide with wrist slaps stance, would increase voter turnout?
An honest answer: It would likely increase the progressive voter turnout, but I am unsure about the net effect. I would certainly hope it increases total overall turnout, but unfortunately a large chunk of the voting populace–including a lot of reliable Democrat voters–are still very much pro-Israel.
That said, I would also like to confirm: Assume for the moment that Biden and Trump wins the nomination, and there is no change in the status quo between now and November (this is unlikely, given Biden’s recent shifts in policy signaling a possible change in trend, but I want to check against the worst case scenario). Would you still vote for Biden, or would you stay home? Would you staying home potentially affect the outcome (I.e. are you in a solid red/blue state like Alabama or California, or are you in a swing state like Michigan or Georgia)? What would need to change for you to vote for Biden in November?
If Biden fears this uncommitted vote movement then he will have to do something to stop it in its tracks.
Using his power to stop the weapons and money transfers to Israel and using the words Ceasefire Now would be a start. If he starts doing concrete actions to stop ten year old children wasting away and dying of starvation then the uncommitted vote movement would be over.
Well, you’re implying that you might vote for someone other than Biden in the general, and the impact of that is that Trump will become president and the impact of that is Israel will have a free pass from US leadership to completely annihilate Gaza and kill with impunity. So, in terms of actually achieving the goal of stopping the killing of Palestinians, voting uncommitted is not going to work.
Additionally, and I think this is IMPORTANT, by promoting voting uncommitted and making it a purity test, some people will be influenced by that and ACTUALLY not vote for Biden and this will be the same thing as voting for Trump in that the result of Trump winning will be the same.
Well, you’re implying that you might vote for someone other than Biden in the general, and the impact of that is that Trump will become president and the impact of that is Israel will have a free pass from US leadership to completely annihilate Gaza and kill with impunity. So, in terms of actually achieving the goal of stopping the killing of Palestinians, voting uncommitted is not going to work. Additionally, by promoting voting uncommitted and making it a purity test, some people will be influenced by that and ACTUALLY not vote for Biden and this will be the same thing as voting for Trump in that the result of Trump winning will be the same.
This would be a much more productive conversation if you didn’t just invent things I didn’t say to argue with. I’ve implied no such thing.
I am explicitly using the Democratic primary as a method to express my displeasure with Biden, which you may recognize as the sole reason primaries exist. I’m increasingly confused by how many people seem to not understand that.
Will voting uncommitted or for the crazy crystal healing lady lead to the Democrats having a component and popular general election candidate come November? No, sadly, but that’s a criticism of the state of our decayed democracy not giving voters meaningful avenues to enact change in society, not a criticism of the electoral strategies that have to exist within said decayed democracy.
Will voting uncommitted or for the crazy crystal healing lady lead to Biden making meaningful changes in his stances regarding Palestine? Given his change in messaging from the guy that bypassed Congress to sell Israel munitions two months ago to someone that now doing the bare minimum of at least air dropping (nowhere near sufficient) food supplies to Gaza, the answer to that is seemingly a slight yes. Which has the benefit of aligning the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee with the majority of voters, making him a stronger general candidate.
You know. The whole point of a primary. So, you’re welcome?
I’m increasingly confused by how many people seem to not understand that.
Me too, and I’m Canadian and don’t know much about US politics. Are there sources out there (e.g., US news, social media campaigns, messaging from actual Democrats) spreading the idea that an uncommitted vote in the primary means voting for trump in the election?
A lot of uncommitted voters are going to vote for Biden out of harm reduction. They might vote against AIPAC-endorsed candidates if they only have Democrats in their ballots. I know I would, but if there is a Republican, I’d have to vote for an AIPAC-endorsed democrat.
Yes lol. If you can’t run a candidate that isn’t whole heartedly in on genocide, then you shouldn’t expect votes from people who don’t like said genocide. The dems clearly don’t actually give a fuck about democracy, why not actually throw that antipopulism behind a candidate who actually appeals to people. “Still uncommited” haha GTFO. Yell at the people actually choosing the candidate, not the people who don’t want to vote for the meat puppet. I mean…Jesus fucking Christ.
Your purity test here makes you equivalent to a Trump supporter in that your actions of not supporting Biden will result in Trump winning the election.
As is clear from this article, Trump will “finish the job” in Gaza. You think it’s bad now? Wait until Israel is encouraged to completely seize Gaza and kill with even more impunity by Trump. So, your purity test for Biden will actually result in a worse outcome than you’re trying to achieve. You’re actually going to be causing a worse situation to unfold — one that is the opposite of what you want. You may say it’s justified because you needed to stand by your morals, but I don’t think that will matter to the Palestinians dying because you chose not to support Biden and by doing so, elected Trump.
I beg you to reconsider your position. Biden won by only a few hundred thousand votes in swing states. Your not supporting Biden and encouraging others not to as well could depress turn out and result in a very unfortunate situation. This may be the last election we ever have in America.
You’d be better off yelling at the people who are pushing the worst possible candidate against Trump. Let’s pretend you convince me to vote, congrats you’ve convinced 1 person in the interwebs. Write to your reps…ramp up the pressure and forget about me. Biden’s losing with or without my vote, it’s a good bet. When that happens you can blame people that didn’t want to vote , or you can blame the party that’s shooting itself in the dick…over…and over again. I know who will get blamed, and I don’t give a fuck.
In the primary? Absolutely. It’s the only way I can demand more from Biden as a representative. These are voters who went out of their way to get up and vote for the democratic primary, just not for Biden. This is a huge way to put pressure on Biden and the DNC. These are committed voters protesting within the democratic party. This is the only way democratic voters can put pressure on Biden to change course.
The National is very different, we don’t have a choice but to vote for Biden or domestic fascism. I will of course vote for Biden and urge others to as well during the National election. Not a third party or Trump in the National, Biden is the only real option.
Trump also repeatedly claimed that if he were president, there would be no war between Israel and Gaza. “It would have never happened if I was president,” he said of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack against Israel, in which more than 1,100 Israeli and foreign nationals were killed. “They wouldn’t have done it to me, I guarantee you that. They did this because they have no respect for Biden and frankly they got soft,” he added.
Having Biden think you won’t vote for him on Nov is a protest. Politicians don’t want to lose power. Now will people actually stay home or vote for Trump? I’m guessing no.
Jesus fuck trump is one dumb mother fucker. So many dipshits were gonna not vote for Biden because of his non committal bullshit when it comes to Gaza. Which, ill admit, is annoying me as well but obviously not so much I’m gonna not vote.
Then this orange fuck comes along and makes sure to push those people back to Biden.
Add comment