It’s very funny to imagine all the libs on here suddenly doing an about face as soon as the election’s over, but it’s not going to happen. It’s just a way to shut down criticism and they’ll find another way to shut down criticism after the election, guaranteed.
You could not make statements that insinuate the plight of genocide victims takes a back seat to US elections because it’s distracting or harmful to those poor presidential candidates. This has been going on for over a year, this isn’t some new issue that popped up before an election.
She’s not president. What is she single-handedly supposed to do? Hilarious that people blame her, not Biden.
Like, we have a felon, racist, con-artist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, asshat who is running and has actively embodied wanting to be the next Hitler, disparages fallen soldiers, taken obvious bribes, lied to citizens faces, started an attempt to overthrow our government, put children in cages, taken money from corrupt countries, will actively attempt to bring back concentration camps, ban women from having bodily autonomy, ban schools from talking about slavery or risk losing funding, make it illegal to be gay/trans, and laugh in your damn face about it all.
But no, the Black lady said some mean things and so therefore she’s not qualified and so I’ll just not do anything so the white guy wins.
I understand that we are stuck with these 2 candidates. But is it not still valid to complain that we have to pick between full throttle genocide and a slightly more palatable “restrained” genocide?
I’m not advocating for people not to vote for Harris. But to boil everything down to “said some mean things” is completely reductive. And you’re correct that she is not the president yet. But the only indication of what her actions will be when and if she is elected, are the things that she is saying now. And right now we are not seeing much if any pushback against what Israel is doing. She keeps saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. But what Israel is doing right now is going far above and beyond simple self defense. It is a genocide.
One way that people have the power to convince her to change her policy is by being vocal about their dissatisfaction. Presidents need to have personal convictions. They can’t just be completely wishy washy. But their role is to be an advocate and representative of the people’s interests. This is why they get elected. Because people feel that the candidate they are voting for is in line with their beliefs, and policies and changes they wish to see. So when people are vocal about their dissatisfaction with the policies she is putting forth, it gives her an indication that it is time to take a second look at what people are criticizing her about. To actually listen to what people are saying and potentially change her views. Especially if she wants their votes.
The people that are criticizing Harris on these issues in particular are by and large people who very obviously would not vote for / do not support Trump. A criticism of Harris is not supporting Trump. It is hoping to convince Harris to become a candidate that they can fully support. Someone they truly believe in and want to become president. Not just somebody they vote for because “well at least it’s not Trump”.
Context is important, that’s how we continue the conversation.
If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!”
That doesn’t work in this context, if one person murders someone, and another murders 2 people, both are still murderers, one just is a worse murderer(as in more evil, not as in worse at committing murder)
So are you agreeing with what I said about both people being murderers or not? Because of you are then you agree that it isn’t a wash, and if you disagree then you are fucking stupid.
No scandals other than the genocide thing.
Because Trump is so Pro-Palestine. /s
So, it’s only bad when a Republican does it? Wow.
Funny, I thought the president was in charge of foreign policy. Good to know it was actually the VP’s job all along.
I’m assuming you’ve never seen her debates, or statements about the issue. If you had, you’d know that she pledged to continue supporting Isreal.
The issue is spreading negativity right before an election, it’s best to wait until after for these comments.
Will be interesting to see the floodgates that open on November 6th.
It’s very funny to imagine all the libs on here suddenly doing an about face as soon as the election’s over, but it’s not going to happen. It’s just a way to shut down criticism and they’ll find another way to shut down criticism after the election, guaranteed.
Yeah those, checks notes, victims of genocide can wait obviously.
Not like I can do anything about it except vote.
You could not make statements that insinuate the plight of genocide victims takes a back seat to US elections because it’s distracting or harmful to those poor presidential candidates. This has been going on for over a year, this isn’t some new issue that popped up before an election.
Other way. If a Republican does it, then it’s not bad for the Democrat to do it. /s
She’s not president. What is she single-handedly supposed to do? Hilarious that people blame her, not Biden.
Like, we have a felon, racist, con-artist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, asshat who is running and has actively embodied wanting to be the next Hitler, disparages fallen soldiers, taken obvious bribes, lied to citizens faces, started an attempt to overthrow our government, put children in cages, taken money from corrupt countries, will actively attempt to bring back concentration camps, ban women from having bodily autonomy, ban schools from talking about slavery or risk losing funding, make it illegal to be gay/trans, and laugh in your damn face about it all.
But no, the Black lady said some mean things and so therefore she’s not qualified and so I’ll just not do anything so the white guy wins.
I understand that we are stuck with these 2 candidates. But is it not still valid to complain that we have to pick between full throttle genocide and a slightly more palatable “restrained” genocide?
I’m not advocating for people not to vote for Harris. But to boil everything down to “said some mean things” is completely reductive. And you’re correct that she is not the president yet. But the only indication of what her actions will be when and if she is elected, are the things that she is saying now. And right now we are not seeing much if any pushback against what Israel is doing. She keeps saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. But what Israel is doing right now is going far above and beyond simple self defense. It is a genocide.
One way that people have the power to convince her to change her policy is by being vocal about their dissatisfaction. Presidents need to have personal convictions. They can’t just be completely wishy washy. But their role is to be an advocate and representative of the people’s interests. This is why they get elected. Because people feel that the candidate they are voting for is in line with their beliefs, and policies and changes they wish to see. So when people are vocal about their dissatisfaction with the policies she is putting forth, it gives her an indication that it is time to take a second look at what people are criticizing her about. To actually listen to what people are saying and potentially change her views. Especially if she wants their votes.
The people that are criticizing Harris on these issues in particular are by and large people who very obviously would not vote for / do not support Trump. A criticism of Harris is not supporting Trump. It is hoping to convince Harris to become a candidate that they can fully support. Someone they truly believe in and want to become president. Not just somebody they vote for because “well at least it’s not Trump”.
Yeah, because the orange guy is completely scandal-free, am I right? /s
And how does that change the fact that the post says there aren’t any? Last time I checked 1 is more than 0.
If something affects both sides it’s effectively “a wash” and cancel each other out.
Unless you have weird double standards and only apply them when it’s convenient.
It’s called mental gymnastics to think “two wrongs make a right.”
It’s called a strawman to build an argument that was never made and then attack it.
It says 0 scandals right there in the post
Just because the other guy also has scandals doesn’t mean she has 0
You didn’t make this absurd claim?:
If you are victimized, you believe you then have the right to also victimize “to cancel it out”?
Context is important, that’s how we continue the conversation.
If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!”
Hope this clarified my meaning.
Apathy has paved a basis for genocide throughout history, your view is not novel nor beneficial.
That doesn’t work in this context, if one person murders someone, and another murders 2 people, both are still murderers, one just is a worse murderer(as in more evil, not as in worse at committing murder)
Seems like it works just fine.
So are you agreeing with what I said about both people being murderers or not? Because of you are then you agree that it isn’t a wash, and if you disagree then you are fucking stupid.
Is two murders worse than one?
Yes obviously, but it doesn’t excuse the other.
Cyka blyat 🤣