Kamala Harris' first stop on the "107 Days" book tour was interrupted multiple times Wednesday night by protesters denouncing Israel’s war in Gaza, but the former vice president pressed on with calm.
So Trump got the “pro-Palestine” movement’s support via them deciding to not vote for his opposition. Great job. Really helped Palestine by easing the way for the racist dictator!
🤷♀️ you don’t get a pass for supporting genocide just because your opposition is one degree worse. If democrats wanted to win they should have listened to the voters and not their billionaire consultants and AIPAC donors. Sucks to suck!
If your goal was to stop the genocide, you should’ve voted for the person that values human lives over the one that doesn’t value anyone but himself. There was a chance we could’ve mounted enough political pressure that Harris would eventually cave. There’s zero chance of that with Trump. Forest through the trees.
I disagree. Harris was the driving force behind some major lawsuits that gave millions of dollars back to senior citizens who were defrauded by billionaire’s corporations. Trump has never, and would never do anything like that. Harris has largely tried to do the right thing throughout her political career, presumably because that is what is politically beneficial for her and she seems to want to leave a positive legacy. In other words, whether she actually cares about people or not, she’s a career politician who has consistently demonstrated that she wants the public to believe she cares about people. Out of the two options we were given, she’s clearly a better choice if you want someone who can be pressured into doing the right thing. Trump is more concerned with doing whatever he wants, then convincing his sycophants that it’s good for them, after the fact.
Harris has only tried to do the right thing if it was politically convenient. Remember in the debate when she called out the racist history of Biden? Magically she dropped all that when she became his VP. Similarly, she was willing to run with the genocide platform because she thought it would help her chances at the presidency. Yes, she’s the better choice, but even the better choice is not good enough. Neither candidate was willing to do something about the genocide and I think that’s something important to recognize.
It doesn’t mean I think she wasn’t the better candidate and it doesn’t mean I think people shouldn’t have voted for her, but when we’ve come to the point where genocide is being actively supported with Biden sending billions of dollars in weapons to the cause and Harris hitching her trailer to that dumpster fire (and this is supposed to be the “good” party) then the situation is just absolutely fucked.
I’m not sure what your argument is meant to accomplish. I’m not a Kamala Harris supporter. I don’t think she’s actually a good person. I’m fully aware of how broken the democratic establishment is… Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making, I guess…
If your goal was to stop the genocide, you should’ve voted for the person that values human lives
I said:
Neither of the top two candidates qualify.
Then you disagreed citing isolated examples of caring about human lives while ignoring the platform of genocide she hitched her wagon to. I pointed out how her examples of “caring” were out of political convenience. If you acknowledge that she’s not a good person, then you agreed with me from the beginning but decided to try to defend her anyway.
I’m not defending her. I’m trying to make the point that she has, and will respond if there’s enough political pressure. That’s all I’ve been saying. Yes, she has demonstrated that she wants the public to believe that she values human lives. I would take a politician that does that over one that does nothing but create chaos. I never said she’s actually a good person. Stop putting words in my mouth and try to understand what I’m saying before you respond.
There was a chance we could’ve mounted enough political pressure that Harris would eventually cave.
Read this again. Pay attention to how weak of an argument it is. There was a chance she would eventually cave? Come on, no one really believes that, especially when she gave no indication that she believed anything different than Trump or Biden about Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. You just got an “I can change her” vibe from her with no evidence.
It’s reality. It sucks, but it’s the options we were given. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s a weak argument. People like you didn’t vote because you didn’t get your perfect politician that checked every box for you, and here we are with fascist toddlers back in the white house, destroying as much as they can. Congratulations. I’m sure the neoliberals really learned their lesson this time.
If she had been a better candidate with better arguments she would have earned enough votes to win. No one is owed votes.
Chicken or egg? Who’s to blame? Voters for not voting for your preferred candidate? Or your candidate for not appealing to the right voters? How did the strategy of winning over “centrist Republicans” work out? Oh it just further alienated actual progressives? Weird, why might that be?
I’m sure the neoliberals really learned their lesson this time.
You’d better hope they did if you want Democrats to ever win again.
So Trump got the “pro-Palestine” movement’s support via them deciding to not vote for his opposition. Great job. Really helped Palestine by easing the way for the racist dictator!
🤷♀️ you don’t get a pass for supporting genocide just because your opposition is one degree worse. If democrats wanted to win they should have listened to the voters and not their billionaire consultants and AIPAC donors. Sucks to suck!
If your goal was to stop the genocide, you should’ve voted for the person that values human lives over the one that doesn’t value anyone but himself. There was a chance we could’ve mounted enough political pressure that Harris would eventually cave. There’s zero chance of that with Trump. Forest through the trees.
Neither of the top two candidates qualify.
“only two”. You wouldn’t want to throw your vote away!
I disagree. Harris was the driving force behind some major lawsuits that gave millions of dollars back to senior citizens who were defrauded by billionaire’s corporations. Trump has never, and would never do anything like that. Harris has largely tried to do the right thing throughout her political career, presumably because that is what is politically beneficial for her and she seems to want to leave a positive legacy. In other words, whether she actually cares about people or not, she’s a career politician who has consistently demonstrated that she wants the public to believe she cares about people. Out of the two options we were given, she’s clearly a better choice if you want someone who can be pressured into doing the right thing. Trump is more concerned with doing whatever he wants, then convincing his sycophants that it’s good for them, after the fact.
Harris has only tried to do the right thing if it was politically convenient. Remember in the debate when she called out the racist history of Biden? Magically she dropped all that when she became his VP. Similarly, she was willing to run with the genocide platform because she thought it would help her chances at the presidency. Yes, she’s the better choice, but even the better choice is not good enough. Neither candidate was willing to do something about the genocide and I think that’s something important to recognize.
It doesn’t mean I think she wasn’t the better candidate and it doesn’t mean I think people shouldn’t have voted for her, but when we’ve come to the point where genocide is being actively supported with Biden sending billions of dollars in weapons to the cause and Harris hitching her trailer to that dumpster fire (and this is supposed to be the “good” party) then the situation is just absolutely fucked.
I’m not sure what your argument is meant to accomplish. I’m not a Kamala Harris supporter. I don’t think she’s actually a good person. I’m fully aware of how broken the democratic establishment is… Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making, I guess…
You said:
I said:
Then you disagreed citing isolated examples of caring about human lives while ignoring the platform of genocide she hitched her wagon to. I pointed out how her examples of “caring” were out of political convenience. If you acknowledge that she’s not a good person, then you agreed with me from the beginning but decided to try to defend her anyway.
I’m not defending her. I’m trying to make the point that she has, and will respond if there’s enough political pressure. That’s all I’ve been saying. Yes, she has demonstrated that she wants the public to believe that she values human lives. I would take a politician that does that over one that does nothing but create chaos. I never said she’s actually a good person. Stop putting words in my mouth and try to understand what I’m saying before you respond.
Read this again. Pay attention to how weak of an argument it is. There was a chance she would eventually cave? Come on, no one really believes that, especially when she gave no indication that she believed anything different than Trump or Biden about Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. You just got an “I can change her” vibe from her with no evidence.
Chance vs. No chance. That’s the argument. One is better than the other.
Yes, and I will reiterate: it’s a weak argument. This supported by the fact that it failed to convince enough people for her to win.
Democrats need stronger arguments if they actually want to win (assuming we have elections in the future).
It’s reality. It sucks, but it’s the options we were given. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s a weak argument. People like you didn’t vote because you didn’t get your perfect politician that checked every box for you, and here we are with fascist toddlers back in the white house, destroying as much as they can. Congratulations. I’m sure the neoliberals really learned their lesson this time.
[Ignoring your ignorant and presumptive vitriol.]
If she had been a better candidate with better arguments she would have earned enough votes to win. No one is owed votes.
Chicken or egg? Who’s to blame? Voters for not voting for your preferred candidate? Or your candidate for not appealing to the right voters? How did the strategy of winning over “centrist Republicans” work out? Oh it just further alienated actual progressives? Weird, why might that be?
You’d better hope they did if you want Democrats to ever win again.