It can be saved, through voting in primaries, grassroot movements, and trying to pressure whoever is in power to do the right thing.

But all of this is only possible if you keep voting for the lesser evil. By electing people like Trump, the US population is sending the message that they like those positions, and therefore the other party will keep shifting more and more to the right to try and capture those voters. And the only way a nation can be saved under those conditions is violent revolution. Are you ready for violent revolution? Because if you’re not I’d suggest you either start a plan to migrate to a better country, or get accustomed to voting “against” people, instead of “for” people.

Too bad that in the US there’s three sides, two that support genocide and a third one which supports whoever gets the most votes out of the other two.

You literally can’t avoid “supporting genocide” in a FPTP system, refusing to choose just means letting others choose for you. And you can’t tell me in good faith that both outcomes were the same.

So what should’ve been the answer to Vance’s proposal of “diplomacy”, in your opinion? Do you think he shouldn’t have questioned the validity of it, in spite of the precedents? Wouldn’t that just mean accepting the deal without any guarantee of protection like it happened before?

Gigi noises are a hell of a drug