At least in my country and I suspect many others, yellow / amber mean "stop if it's safe to do so", effectively the same as a red light.

I think if Sheeran offered to do an opener, Macklemore would accept since it's about Palestine and not either of them.

Who said anything about "going hard against Israel"? And it's not like there's a report that contradicts your claim, right?

You have no idea how I voted. Op suggested that people didn't vote for her for trivial reasons, which trivialises the real documented reason of expressly supporting a genocide.

You didn't answer my first point at all.

And your list still pales in comparison to what Israel had already done by that point.

Of course Trump is far worse, I've never said otherwise. At least you agree that Kamala was wrong to supporting Israel, which is very different than your original post.

In some shells (e.g. fish), "running" a directory changes to it so you can save keystrokes and just delete the "ls ".

So she had to support genocide because otherwise people like me would have found some other way to attack her? Do you have any basis for that assertion? Again, you don't know how I voted.

I only posted because your post shows you think thousands of dead children is trivial compared to Trump putting his name on a monument.

And what are you claiming that Trump done at that point that was beyond that Israel?

I guarantee you're wrong about how I voted. And why are you moving the goal posts? Harris stated clearly that she wouldn't change anything when dealing with Israel and she wanted to make Israel the most violent army in the world, so it's very likely that the situation in Gaza and Lebanon would be very similar. It was already a disaster when Biden was president.

That doesn't seem right. If you imagine moving the "off-centre" point towards the edge, then two of the slices will cover most of the pizza, so the remaining slices can't add up to enough.

It would make a fun geogebra animation.

You're right about that one phrase, I mixed it up with something else. She did state that she would continue to support arming Israel unconditionally.

Everything else I said still stands, and you haven't addressed any of it.

You need to add another switch on track that could send the train to the third empty track before running over anyone but the rail workers refuse to pull it. And then everyone that pulled the lever without hesitation denies the third track was connected and refuses to blame the rail workers, even though they knew what would happen and had more agency to change the outcome.

I think a better analogy is that there is a train far approaching a junction. A bystander is standing at the switch. They can see one track has what looks like people tied up. The other track is empty, except for someone holding a child over the track. The bystander shouts at them to move the child out of the way, but that someone just says, "Nope" and smirks.

The bystander is unsure and ends up not pulling the lever, sending the train onto the first track, which turns out to have lots of people tied to it. Then some other clever observers stand between the bystander and the person holding the child, yelling at the bystander for not making the objectively correct choice.

It's a good thing Kamala didn't compromise on supporting genocide. Otherwise she might have won and fewer dead children would have been a real problem.

Yes.

Look, we had pretty much a textbook trolley problem where it was objectively correct* to pick the track with fewer casualties. But now that the train has gone, we need to lay responsibility squarely with those who tied the casualties to the tracks in the first place.

(*One reason for choosing the other track was to give the democrats their own trolley problem, choosing between getting elected or leaving casualties on their track. And they chose the latter. Now we're seeing more progressive candidates emerge so arguably it worked. Was it worth the cost? That's harder to decide since we'd have to estimate the long term costs of a hypothetical scenario.)

But regardless of what the objectively correct choice was, belittling those who disagreed by trivialising their reasons or absolving the architects of the dilemma of responsibility is just wrong.

The analogy was ridiculous in the first place, always was and always will be.