I envy that you think theres a material difference between how trump and kamala would handle Israel

When I look at both parties, I see one party that is substantially more fascist. Fascism, notoriously, loves furthering genocidal rhetoric, and doing genocidal acts. If I had to pick which party I think is more likely to provide a worse outcome to the genocide, it would be the more fascist one.

I in no way think either of them will magically stop the genocide, give Palestinians sovereignty, or stop destabilizing the rest of the world with conflict driven by global imperialism. But I have good reason to believe one of them will do substantially worse things in that direction, so I will do everything I can to at least make sure that person doesn't get into power.

I truly hope you are capable of telling which party represents each possible action.

you weigh a potential genocide as more than an existing one.

I do not. Kamala is substantially less likely to do a genocide on American soil, compared to Trump. Trump is substantially more fascist, and is much more likely to continue endorsing and funding the Israeli-Palestinian genocide.

It's not as if Kamala is going to keep supporting the genocide of Palestinians, but not do a genocide in America, but Trump will stop the genocide of Palestinians, and maybe do a genocide in America instead. He'll just do both.

And considering Trump's rhetoric, I wouldn't trust him to handle the genocide of Palestinians better than Kamala. I see the option that has the least (but not no) negative effects as voting for Kamala. I do not want to, but I sincerely do not want Trump in power even more than that.

People keep making more people, so who builds their houses?

Developers. If there is more demand in a market, they will build property, then sell it to whoever is willing to buy, or, will seek funding from an existing institution, which if it's not landlords, will be housing cooperatives, then use that funding to finance new buildings. Traditionally, when we're talking high-density housing, the buyer of these properties is a landlord. Without that landlord, the demand still exists, and someone, or some group of people, will inevitably fund the cost of the housing. In a world with no for-profit landlords, housing cooperatives fill in the gaps. (primarily for high-density housing specifically)

Either existing cooperative members come to an agreement to pay slightly higher rents in order to build up a fund used to later purchase and expand their pool of housing, (which later increases the benefit they receive from economies of scale, and reduces risk of a major issue in one building causing a lack of revenue altogether) or a new cooperative is formed with money pooled from members, and once a specific threshold is met, they collectively purchase the property.

Housing is a good with inelastic demand. Everyone needs housing. There will always be someone, or some group of people willing to buy. And if you don't have landlords to artificially increase the price of housing, which only goes up so quickly because of its commodification, and further purchasing by for-profit landlords, then the overall cost for a cooperative to outright buy a new property, or for a new cooperative to raise the funds required, is substantially lowered.

Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you

Your rent is quite literally paying for the maintenance. You think landlords are just losing money on maintenance out of the good of their own hearts? Of course not, it's just all bundled up and averaged out into one price with your rent.

owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.

Cool, that's one of many benefits of housing cooperatives. They can act similarly to a landlord in terms of you sharing the cost of repairs with the whole building, which reduces risk, and they don't have a profit motive, since they're non-profits, so rent is lower than with a landlord. Some even let your rent buy you equity in your unit, which you can then sell later to get some of your money back if you decide to move, much better than the for-profit landlord that will give you nothing. The only issue is, these cooperatives are repeatedly outbid by corporate landlords, which means there's far fewer of them than would be ideal.

Additionally, I've seen some startups like Cohere that seem like they'll eventually be able to give you even more flexibility, allowing you to move between units in various locations without having to sell the old one or file annoying paperwork to start a new lease, with at least somewhat cooperative ownership. (although, of course, this is a for profit company, which isn't as ideal)

I can definitely understand wanting flexibility, but there are ways to get that which don't involve overpaying to a for-profit landlord. I can understand not caring much about equity, but of course, that's why non-ownership housing cooperatives exist.

But to actually make those things more widely available, you need to reduce the market power held by for-profit landlords. If they did not exist, these alternatives, primarily the cooperatives, could fill back in the gaps, but provide lower prices, better service, actual equity for those who want it, and still keep the flexibility you get from renting.

And the main factor driving down payments is housing prices, which are driven by landlords. Less landlords > less scarcity > lower prices > lower down payments.

On top of that, housing cooperatives exist, which can provide the benefits of renting (lower monthly payments than a mortgage, economy of scale for repairs & construction, less financial liability for the individual) without the negative effects of a for-profit landlord. (you progressively own more of your unit over time instead of never owning any of it, you pay lower monthly rates than you would to a for-profit entity)

They even have different ownership models, which could give more choice for pricing. For instance, the non-ownership model means you pay a lower rate, just the cost of continuing the providing and upkeep of the housing, with no additional profit margin, but you don't end up owning any of the unit you live in. But the ownership model means often paying a bit higher pricing, but in turn, getting to actually own the unit you live in, and later sell it off if you wish to move. (some cooperatives have caps on how much higher you can sell it for compared to your purchase price, others do not)

But in the end, the one thing that makes housing more expensive, that outbids cooperatives for housing, and that increases the scarcity of the market, is for-profit landlords.

The only way you get any true positive change on down payments, housing prices, or housing availability, is to completely ban all for-profit landlording.

The main issue for a lot of people is a lack of good third places.

Combine less and less free time outside of work, with higher nationwide costs affecting access to third places that you would otherwise congregate with people in, (i.e. cafes, bars, clubs, etc) and you get people who, while probably somewhat outgoing, are unable to actually be outgoing, since there's not a good place to express that in.

so basically I'm being forced into trial.

Sovcit finds out what the law is for the first time (heartbreaking)

Of course, we can definitely agree on that. Liberals don't seem to understand that voting Democrat isn't the end of the road for positive political change.

But of course, if liberals have no power at all, then changing their mind won't exactly lead to them doing any action in the end anyways. Regardless of how stacked the deck is, voting Democrat at least won't lead to as bad a result.

I think most third party voters just assume Dems want to earn their vote. They don't. They want to earn the vote of undecided people, and republicans that are still somewhat open to another side. It's the whole reason the Dems are as center-right as they are.

They won't see people voting third party and go "Oh my god, we need to get these further-left-than-us voters to agree with us!" They'll go, "We need to pull moderate voters in the swing states that actually dictate our elections over to our side, not only giving us a vote, but negating a vote for Trump too!"

You can check out the other comment I wrote in response to a similar response here, but I'll give an additional short answer here too.

The point of buying extra time is to increase the chance of any other action being taken against the right succeeding. It doesn't matter what that action is (although I did give a list in that other comment), and that's not what my comment was originally about. It was solely about the fact that voting for the lesser of two evils is objectively better than letting the worse of two evils have a higher chance of getting into power.

Harm reduction doesn't work as a long-term strategy on its own, but not doing it just means any other politically beneficial action you want to take is less likely to succeed, since there's now an even bigger fascist in power.

that still doesnt explain how we fix this problem

what do we do next election when the next Nazi supreme is running?

This is the exact point I made in my comment.

This does not fix the problem, but it reduces how bad it gets within a general timeframe. Harm reduction can never actually fix the harm being done, it can only make the harm less severe.

Again, just like I said before,

The situation is complete shit, and nobody wants to just have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

But if we don't vote for the lesser of two evils, we just get an even more genocidal, fascist maniac in office.

you seem to trivialize how awful it is to vote for an administration currently committing genocide.

This election will happen. It doesn't matter who you want to win. If you vote for Kamala, she will perpetuate the genocide. If you vote for nobody, you increase the chance of Trump winning (since the more people vote, on average, the more likely it is for Democrats to win.) If you vote for Trump, you, of course, increase the chance of Trump winning. If Trump is in office, we know he will not only continue the genocide, but will also likely engage in further genocide on American soil, as he's already clearly demonstrated he's a racist freak that doesn't see immigrants as people.

I am not proposing a solution. This is not a solution. I don't know how I can make that more clear. I'm not proposing a solution, I'm proposing a harm reduction measure that can then be used in tandem with other, further actions to try and save our democracy.

But it is the best possible, or rather, least bad option we have, given our circumstances. Do you want the fascist, or the lesser fascist? Because you have to pick.

The only way you can increase your chances of other, good plans being enacted, is to make sure the situation is as favorable to you as possible. Having a far-right fascist like Trump in power will most certainly not do that. Anything that reduces his chances of winning is beneficial.

If you want a long-term strategy outside of just voting for the lesser of two evils, you can directly contact representatives in the party to try and sway their opinions more to the left, which could possibly change their trajectory as a party. You can engage in direct action like legal, or even illegal protests in order to demonstrate the public support your opinions hold, to increase the likelihood your positions will be seen favorably in congress. You can campaign on the easier-to-influence local level to enact ranked-choice voting for city and state elections, which will grow the overall support for better voting systems nationwide. You can donate to nonprofits that inform misinformed senators, and raise public awareness and outcry against fascist policy.

Are any of those a silver bullet? Of course not. Is that an extensive list? Hell no. But you're not getting any of that done if the guy in power is so unbelievably fascist, you're not able to protest without being trampled by a militarized police force within 5 minutes, or if you have even less economic power compared to corporations that just got tax breaks, while your wages went down. I don't like the Democrats, but I hate Trump even more. This election will pick one of them, and anything I can do to stop Trump from getting in power will then make it easier to take other politically left-leaning steps in the right direction after.

Yeah, I didn't notice right away, but even after I did, I still think it gets the point across pretty clearly.

I'd probably want it to be human-drawn if it was going to be, for instance, posted up physically outside somewhere, but for something some random person on the internet can do to get a point across, I'd say it's pretty valid for what it is.

"1 in 10 people believe they are not at risk when using illicit sources to watch TV, film or sports."

ONE in ten? Man, they're even bad at cherry picking statistics 😂

They even cite a study with only 1,000 participants for their statistic that "32% OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF FRAUD"

In the title, at least. The body of that claim's card says that it's the people, or someone they know that have been victims of fraud.

Gosh, I hate dishonest scare marketing campaigns.