FuzzyDog
My crazy idea here is maybe the DNC should run candidates people actually like. There's no way in hell if they ran a primary Kamala would have won the nomination given how unpopular she was as VP.
Find me one Kamala voter as excited for her candidacy as the average Trump voter was for him, and I'll find you a dozen who were only supporting her because whe wasn't the other guy. Same story with the Biden campaign in 2020 and Clinton before that.
Well, let's see here:
Harris supported genocide You voted for Harris You effectively voted for genocide
See, unlike you, I'm not okay with making such a compromise. Here's a crazy idea, instead of making the boneheaded decision to run Harris, the DNC could have run a candidate who was actually popular, or at least not notably unpopular. But no, we got the sidekick to genocide Joe.
And let me remind you that the situation in Palestine got so terrible under Biden's policy of enabling Israel to no end. Seriously, Trump's been in office for a week or two, the overwhelming majority of the devastation is Gaza happened under a blue administration who was more than happy to give an endless supply of lethal aid to Israel for the last year and a half. FFS, if the Democrats had the spine to pull the pipeline of tax dollars to Israel within the first month of the ethnic cleansing, we never would have reached this point. Nearly the entire death toll in Gaza so far happened under Biden.
But hey, go off on blaming the voters who voted based on some pretty fundamental moral principles instead of the DNC for giving unlimited unconditional support to Israel for well over a year now.
If Harris was gonna be swayed by public opinion, it would have happened after the massive protest vote in Michigan. It didn't. It could have happened after polling showed how incredibly unpopular her Gaza policy was with her party base. It didn't. And it didn't change when she actually needed votes, it's safe to say it never would have changed.
If Harris has been elected, a huge number of Democrats would be more than happy to sweep current events in Gaza under the rug, because now our person is in charge, and they can do no wrong.
So noble that you don't reject genocide on principle, only by if who does it is on your team or not
The amount of mental gymnastics you're doing to justify the Democratic party supporting genocide is genuinely sad. And I do mean that, like it's truly sad to me that so many people have convinced themselves that it's a fine and normal thing that a nominally progressive party should support the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. I didn't vote for that platform and I never will, because it's truly, fundamentally evil. "Oh but it's better then the other guy" so? I'm still voting to kill these people. I'd sooner not vote at all.
If Kamala had won, I absolutely guarantee you the overwhelming majority of Democrats would have conveniently forgotten how we were bankrolling these terrible crimes overseas.
I'm sure the kids being killed in airstrikes really care if the bombs were bankrolled by a blue or red administration.
He's not, don't get me wrong. But at the end of the day, Kamala Harris still supported genocide. If I voted for her, I'd have been voting for this fundamentally evil policy. Frankly, I'm not interested in doing that, and I stand by that.
And yet, on other Lemmy instances like world, people will fight to the bitter end defending Joe Biden's policy of enabling Israel. And if you dare suggest Kamala Harris was also going to keep supporting Israel, you'll be crucified lmao.
I guess genocide is okay if it's backed by a Western power (but only if a democrat is in charge).
What? Running a candidate people like is probably the most important thing in an election. And the DNC knew from polling that she was unpopular as a VP. Seriously what on earth are you talking about that having a candidate people like doesn't matter.