You made a bunch of assumptions about me and tried to paint a picture of a person you’d like to argue against last time we spoke too.

If no one’s gonna take my position seriously then why do you care?

If you arent planning on paying attention to what the other person says and youre just gonna fall back on building a strawman to lob ad-hominem attacks against then why are you replying?

Harris is party to genocide. She serves as vp to a president who repeated the lies of the people committing the genocide, took executive action to send weapons to them and has not made efforts to stop the violence that we have seen put forward from a president in a similar situation in the opposition party.

Harris has said that she intends to continue to support israel in their genocide. When asked directly what she would do to stop the loss of Palestinian life she pivoted to talking about groceries within this week.

Harris could break with the administration she serves under, so many people have left it in protest, she could signal her willingness to see to end the genocide by joining them.

She will not because she is pro genocide. There’s no other way to put it. None of that is misinformation.

She has the opportunity to influence it from within at a high position and takes no action, she has the capacity to use her position to speak out against it and she does not. She is running to take on the only position higher than the one she occupies and could campaign on ending it but she does not. She could promise to end it or make any commitment to use her powers as president to stop it but she does not.

If you have the ability to stop a genocide and people ask you to do so and you refuse, you’re pro genocide. Harris is pro genocide.

That’s not debatable. It’s the whole reason people are bending over backwards to try and paint trump as a greater evil because they can’t deny that Harris is evil because she is pro genicide.

With that cleared up, some ways de la Cruz could accomplish just one of her bullshit promises as president is by first and foremost not sending weapons to israel by executive order. She could also condition aid to israel on a ceasefire, and she could refuse to send aid ordered by congress due to its being illegal under international law backed up by the power of the justice department.

A president harris could also do those things, but would not because she is pro genocide.

Our previous discussion began with you calling me a bad faith actor and ended with you saying you were disgusted with yourself.

You don’t have to keep responding.

That’s why it’s so important that you go out and vote psl!

Even if the de la Cruz campaign doesn’t win, a strong showing helps them get funding, event invitations, media coverage, ballot space and make it more likely people will hear about them.

Even if you don’t actually want psl to grow, a big turnout makes it more likely that the democrats (or republicans, if you generally side with them instead) will adopt parts of the psl platform!

Even if what you said were true, I’d gladly pick an untested candidate who is against genocide over a battle hardened pro genocide one any day.

Of course, what you’re saying isn’t true.

I will vote for the placeholder candidate when the place they’re holding is the one marked “no genocide”.

If people voting for psl spoils the democrats chances then maybe the democrats should adopt the psl platform in order to win.

You and I already had a conversation where we discussed psls strategy, so suggesting that there isn’t one especially in a reply to me is pretty sus.

The op didn’t specify an emoji for this one.

Theoretically, no.

In reality, possibly/yes!

What do you have?

Yes, I vote defederation

That’s not a civil war though, that’s stoichastic terrorism at least and militia violence at most. I, uh, was just in a disaster in the us where militias were said to have been run off by the national guard and local law enforcement.

It’s still scary, but it’s not civil war.

To give you an idea of how common what you’re describing used to be, when 9/11 happened people who hadn’t already gotten the word from the federal government were blaming it on domestic terrorist organizations and individuals. We had just come off of a decade of federal law enforcement torching Waco, sniping ruby ridge, package bombs, federal building bombs (including wtc!) and school shootings there at the end.

The harmless nut job was such a common idea that the Feds had to really struggle against it when they bungled Waco and ruby ridge.

There’s been thirty years of domestic counter terror training to deal with just this type of situation. Fifty if you count the bender mienhoff group in Europe as the start.

You may see Waco 2.0 but you won’t see a civil war.

No and you should not listen to people who think it could.

A civil war is large scale armed conflict between groups vying for the levers of power. In the case of the American civil war it was over slavery and came to war because there was no mechanism to integrate the south’s elites into the power structures of the north’s or vice versa and the material bases of those two groups power structures were in opposition.

What two groups would fight an American civil war nowadays? Democrats and republicans? They serve the same masters. We are witnessing propaganda bent to the ends of integrating members of one group into another.

Separatist militias? Not only would that not be a civil war, we saw how the fbi handled them in the 90s.

Corporations? Why would they do that? Government already does the unprofitable things they want and does them how they want them.

Separatist states? It’s against the economic interests of the very people who would make up the elite class of the new nation of Texas to submit their borders to taxes and tariffs.

Workers? That’s a revolution, not a civil war.

If someone wants you to fear modern civil war they’re trying to control you.

If someone makes art about a modern civil war they’re trying to tell you about something else on the sly, like with zombies.

I’m glad you got it sorted with dd.

One thing people don’t often realize about dd is that it copies all the data from one drive to the other, including uuids that were written when the old drives filesystem were created.

For that reason it excels at cloning one’s boot disk, because when the old drive gets removed from the pc, the clone drives os says at some point during the boot process “okay, let’s mount the filesystem with uuid ABC123 at /“ and it works.

Dd is also not the best tool for cloning disk that you intend to leave hooked up because if you do it’ll put the poor host os in a “I’m seein’ double here, four spidermen!” Type situation.

Not really.

Even with lvm/sub volumes the benefit is that you could ostensibly keep one home directory between two different distributions you switch booting between. The better solution there would be to have a rsync backup and sync it after booting or shutting down or periodically because then you have a backup at least.

For distro hopping it’s not that great because who’s to say you’re getting the “good” experience with some random new distro when it overrides its defaults meant to be nicey-nice with some other stuff from ~/.gnome/gtk2/gtk3/desktop/widgets/clock/fonts/ttf/arial?

Just back your stuff up, rsync selectively from that backup and use the same filesystem for home as you do for /.

It’s the same thing as asking if you should put a lift in your homes attached garage. If you have to ask if it’s good idea and not just cool, then the answer is no.