The logic is that it’s simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, “yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!”
It’s just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala’s brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, “yes, I’m fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!”?
What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?
What dirt-fucking moron thought “I’m against genocide, so I’m going to make the genocide go faster! That’ll show 'em!” was a good idea? You don’t tell someone not to shoot you in the foot by telling them to shoot you in the head instead.
Because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference. At some point you’re sitting there deciding between Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini might objectively be the better choice, as his crimes are fewer than Hitler’s by pure magnitude. But given that choice, a lot of people will just refuse to participate.
People don’t vote based on pure logic. That’s not how human beings operate. Don’t make your voters feel like they need to go to confess their sins to a priest after voting for your candidate, and maybe then you won’t have people refusing to vote for them.
As the song goes, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” If you sat out knowing full well that doing so is a de-facto vote for Trump, you still chose to sit out. That means you still chose to make things actively worse. And you made that choice knowing that it would make things actively worse for them and for you.
Your choices have consequences. Your choice will make things worse for yourself and the people you claim to be standing up for. And you made your choice knowing that doing so would make things worse. You share in the responsibility for that, and all the cognitive dissonance in the world may make you sleep slightly better at night, but it doesn’t change that fact. Congratulations. You sent the Democrats a message to put up a “better” candidate in 2028. I’m sure that the few million Palenstinians that will be either displaced or outright killed between now and then will be grateful for that.
I voted for Harris. I support Gaza, and I know that Harris would not have likely done very much to help them. But I do not believe that the answer to that problem was to send someone in who’s plan is to kill them faster while fucking over a shit-ton of other people in the process.
And I get it. It’s a classic example of Sophie’s choice. I don’t particularly like the “Hitler/Musollini” bit but let’s just say “Killer A” and “Killer B”. I get it; No matter which one you choose, you’re dead either way so why does it matter? Totally get it. But that wasn’t what was here. It was “Killer A saying you may die in six months” vs. “Killer B is going to kill you tomorrow.” See the difference? A lot of people would likely want to live another six months, if only to hold onto the hope that they’ll find a way out in the interim.
Instead, they voted for a guy who wants to send missiles over there like it’s the 4th of July.
The logic is that it’s simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, “yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!”
It’s just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala’s brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, “yes, I’m fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!”?
What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?
Sounds like a description of the GeNoCiDe jOe crowd who helped end democracy
What dirt-fucking moron thought “I’m against genocide, so I’m going to make the genocide go faster! That’ll show 'em!” was a good idea? You don’t tell someone not to shoot you in the foot by telling them to shoot you in the head instead.
Because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference. At some point you’re sitting there deciding between Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini might objectively be the better choice, as his crimes are fewer than Hitler’s by pure magnitude. But given that choice, a lot of people will just refuse to participate.
People don’t vote based on pure logic. That’s not how human beings operate. Don’t make your voters feel like they need to go to confess their sins to a priest after voting for your candidate, and maybe then you won’t have people refusing to vote for them.
As the song goes, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” If you sat out knowing full well that doing so is a de-facto vote for Trump, you still chose to sit out. That means you still chose to make things actively worse. And you made that choice knowing that it would make things actively worse for them and for you.
Your choices have consequences. Your choice will make things worse for yourself and the people you claim to be standing up for. And you made your choice knowing that doing so would make things worse. You share in the responsibility for that, and all the cognitive dissonance in the world may make you sleep slightly better at night, but it doesn’t change that fact. Congratulations. You sent the Democrats a message to put up a “better” candidate in 2028. I’m sure that the few million Palenstinians that will be either displaced or outright killed between now and then will be grateful for that.
I voted for Harris. I support Gaza, and I know that Harris would not have likely done very much to help them. But I do not believe that the answer to that problem was to send someone in who’s plan is to kill them faster while fucking over a shit-ton of other people in the process.
And I get it. It’s a classic example of Sophie’s choice. I don’t particularly like the “Hitler/Musollini” bit but let’s just say “Killer A” and “Killer B”. I get it; No matter which one you choose, you’re dead either way so why does it matter? Totally get it. But that wasn’t what was here. It was “Killer A saying you may die in six months” vs. “Killer B is going to kill you tomorrow.” See the difference? A lot of people would likely want to live another six months, if only to hold onto the hope that they’ll find a way out in the interim.
Instead, they voted for a guy who wants to send missiles over there like it’s the 4th of July.