May not be their mentality, but that is the reality when you show more contempt for those mad about said genocide enabling than for the figure you’re advocating for despite them enabling genocide
It certainly isn’t. Victims of genocide are unaffected by any individual’s mindset. I fully agree with your position; I’m simply advocating for an exploration of that mindset to inform better future choices.
The only thing she wanted to change about bidens administration was to add more Republicans, the same administration that was regularly sending arms to Israel. Palestinians weren’t allowed to speak at the dnc. She had plenty of opportunities to show support for the Palestinian people, every time she supported Israel instead.
She didn’t add as many republicans as Trump did. Trump want to put American boots on the ground in Gaza for the US to take control. How many Palestinians did Trump allow to speak?
I chose not to engage with your strawman. It was not a rebuttal. She tried to negotiate peace. That’s a fact. Trump wants to remove all Palestinians from Gaza and take it for the US. That is a fact.
Voting is not supporting and my state went blue so no I didn’t. Also that’s not relevant to the conversation at hand. The point is that she was a shitty candidate that supported genocide and mostly ran on not being Trump. But when people correctly point that out, many such as yourself get more angry at that person instead of the shitty candidate. What it feels like is you’re married to the dnc, and when someone accurately tells you that they’re abusive and they’re cheating on you, you shoot the messenger.
No one is inspired to vote for the lesser evil. Be mad at the dnc for running a campaign of “we’re not going to help anyone but at least we’re not Trump” instead of actually trying to be good. Working people are your allies, not the elite trying to divide us with stupid electoralism.
Kamala supporters should look in the mirror and ask themselves why they’re ok with their candidate enabling genocide
I don’t think this is a fair analysis of any real person’s position.
May not be their mentality, but that is the reality when you show more contempt for those mad about said genocide enabling than for the figure you’re advocating for despite them enabling genocide
That’s a real comfort to all the genocide victims
It certainly isn’t. Victims of genocide are unaffected by any individual’s mindset. I fully agree with your position; I’m simply advocating for an exploration of that mindset to inform better future choices.
She used the only power she had to try to negotiate a ceasefire. What you are saying simply isn’t factual.
The only thing she wanted to change about bidens administration was to add more Republicans, the same administration that was regularly sending arms to Israel. Palestinians weren’t allowed to speak at the dnc. She had plenty of opportunities to show support for the Palestinian people, every time she supported Israel instead.
She didn’t add as many republicans as Trump did. Trump want to put American boots on the ground in Gaza for the US to take control. How many Palestinians did Trump allow to speak?
If those are your concerns, you chose poorly.
Nice deflecting from your rebutted “factually untrue”
To answer this new prompt, just because Trump supports genocide doesn’t mean you needed to accept Kamala supporting genocide
I chose not to engage with your strawman. It was not a rebuttal. She tried to negotiate peace. That’s a fact. Trump wants to remove all Palestinians from Gaza and take it for the US. That is a fact.
There was no strawman. What did I say that was untrue?
Also
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
edit
I decided to go ahead and provide sources
https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-administration-planning-680-million-arms-sale-israel-source-2024-11-27/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/dnc-palestine-uncommitted-speech-ruwa-romman-1235085916/
Can’t really cite a source for this, I would actually need you to find an instance where she had an opportunity and didn’t support Israel.
A strawman isn’t untrue. It’s just irrelevant to the argument.
Removed by mod
It was gazas best chance at actually existing. Also she was the only one with a chance at 270 electoral votes
Your turn. Why did you vote for someone who couldn’t get to 270? Do you not realize you literally helped trump?
Voting is not supporting and my state went blue so no I didn’t. Also that’s not relevant to the conversation at hand. The point is that she was a shitty candidate that supported genocide and mostly ran on not being Trump. But when people correctly point that out, many such as yourself get more angry at that person instead of the shitty candidate. What it feels like is you’re married to the dnc, and when someone accurately tells you that they’re abusive and they’re cheating on you, you shoot the messenger.
No one is inspired to vote for the lesser evil. Be mad at the dnc for running a campaign of “we’re not going to help anyone but at least we’re not Trump” instead of actually trying to be good. Working people are your allies, not the elite trying to divide us with stupid electoralism.
Nuance