Let me ask it again, would Kamala have done the awful crimes that trump is doing, yes or no? If yes, justify it, anything short of that is tacit acknowledgement that she wouldn’t (and is exactly the kind of continued deflection I expect from this conversation) because you’d be able to do so if they were as close as you say. I keep hearing that they’re the same, yet aside from supporting Israel (to a bad, but objectively lesser extent), there’s no real argument to be made aside from purity politics. And playing purity politics is a good portion of why we are where we are.
It’s a simple question, yes or no?
It’s fucking unbelievable to me the way you write about this, like supporting a genocide is like some little understandable human foible or something. Supporting a genocide makes you completely nonviable. Full stop.
See, this is why people likely find your views shallow or childish. Supporting the candidate who wanted THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SUFFERING is not the same as supporting everything they support, or even in the same fucking plane as supporting genocide. And if one supports a small amount vs a massive amount, it doesn’t take much brain power to realize that the option to reduce harm is the smaller of the two.
Also, it helps to understand electoral politics. If you have two options and you don’t choose, you’re choosing to let the majority choose for you and is a tacit vote for the opposition in an election where they were doing everything they can to suppress turnout. I can just as easily make the argument that you indirectly supported even more genocide because you couldn’t vote for the lesser option as you can for me supporting genocide because I voted for Kamala.
Nothing more needs to be said. You would vote for Hitler himself if he ran on a Dem ticket against Mussolini.
Yeah, this is also why your views are seen as childish, and makes it blindingly clear you have no understanding of what I’m saying and are just responding emotionally. You’re just trying to get under my skin because you know you can’t respond to my actual point.
You can just read the rest of my comments for the answer to your questions, I’ve already explained it at least half a dozen times and I’m getting a bit tired of doing so.
Nah, I want you to defend yourself instead of hiding behind your purity politics.
Yeah, that’s what I thought
It’s a simple question, yes or no?
See, this is why people likely find your views shallow or childish. Supporting the candidate who wanted THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SUFFERING is not the same as supporting everything they support, or even in the same fucking plane as supporting genocide. And if one supports a small amount vs a massive amount, it doesn’t take much brain power to realize that the option to reduce harm is the smaller of the two.
Also, it helps to understand electoral politics. If you have two options and you don’t choose, you’re choosing to let the majority choose for you and is a tacit vote for the opposition in an election where they were doing everything they can to suppress turnout. I can just as easily make the argument that you indirectly supported even more genocide because you couldn’t vote for the lesser option as you can for me supporting genocide because I voted for Kamala.
Yeah, this is also why your views are seen as childish, and makes it blindingly clear you have no understanding of what I’m saying and are just responding emotionally. You’re just trying to get under my skin because you know you can’t respond to my actual point.
Nah, I want you to defend yourself instead of hiding behind your purity politics.
But we both know you can’t.