As feckless and corporate as they usually are, they are still much better on women's rights, civil rights, anti-trust, voting rights, the environment and much else
There would be far fewer women success stories, and a far smaller black middle class were it not for the Dems.  

All of that could be lost.  
If you live in a swing state, I advise a vote for Harris/Walz; in a non-swing state knock yourself out voting for an alternative to the duopoly.

Peace,
*Martin

Hey Martin*,

How does a Veterans For Peace member "serve the cause of world peace" and work with others "to abolish war as an instrument of national policy," as mandated by our Statement of Purpose, yet deliberately cast a vote for anyone "who is pledged to help operate the [Empire's] slaughter machine, and ...not see any would-be operators of that machine as meaningfully different from any other," to quote Caitlin Johnstone in her Substack piece today? The candidate you recommend for swing-state voters, Kamala Harris, is a willful accomplice to the ongoing US/Israeli slaughter of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and pledges to keep the killing going, wherever and however possible, with "the most lethal fighting force in the world." I could not help but respond to you in this thread after reading Caitlin's piece, which resonates with so many independent, uncompromisingly pro-peace voters, particularly this quote:

"Americans are the most propagandized population on this planet, and their propaganda indoctrination is at its most intensive during the quadrennial performance ritual known as the US presidential race. The whole thing is geared toward falsely exaggerating the differences between the two candidates while drawing emphasis away from the 99 percent of the issues on which they are indistinguishable from each other. And those 99 percent similarities happen to be on all the most murderous and tyrannical behaviors of the US government."

BTW, most of the electoral concerns you cited are easily dispelled, but I vote third party or independent rather than endorse a warmongering agenda from either legacy party campaign to safeguard my domestic comfort. And as far as VP Harris goes, it's a simple case of payback for me.

EXCOMM MEETS IN WEST WING Sky V pinterest.com

Finally, today marks the 62nd anniversary of the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Nikita Khruschev conceding the dismantling and removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba. Analysts like Peter Kornbluh conclude it owes its successful resolution to JFK's commitment to negotiate and find common ground in a dangerous nuclear world. Could any of us realistically consider either one of these doofuses, Trump or Harris, engaging with Khrushchev or the Joint Chiefs in the West Wing ExComm? With Curtis Lemay? McNamara, Bundy? We would have been starshine for decades by now.

China May Be Putting Its Nukes on Hair-Trigger Alert popularmechanics.com

Or in a similar global crisis today, with thousands of nuclear weapons on trigger alert, Putin, or Xi?

Finally, it will not matter which POTUS candidate is eventually inaugurated in January 2025. The hawkish Democratic foreign policy establishment, totally embraced by Joe Biden for more than fifty years, will still be running the show and calling the shots well after he has been packed off to assisted care. Barring a foreign policy catastrophe inflicting lasting damage to its core or leveraging for the demise of the Duopoly through the electoral process for a more diverse source of peaceful expertise and experience, it is likely to be a long haul.

So, strap in and brace for impact.


Peace, someday soon?
Gene