When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality. The person that has the most support has the most power to intact change. Sometimes that means you have to crawl through shit to get there.
I'll take any bigot, racist, or whatever vote if that means the better candidate wins in November, because that alternative is the bigot, racist, racist. Better to fluff the controversial voters and hopefully win than lose an election because of a speech. And if she doesn't win, then it doesn't matter what she said anyway.
When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality.
As though you consider any capitulation to fascism unfortunate.
Jesus christ.
If one candidate said they'd kill the jews, but the other said they'd just send them to camps (to appease that popular fascist voter), liberals would end up voting to send the jews to concentration camps.
This is how liberals end up siding with fascism
That might be true if anything even remotely close to that happened, but that is a completely different situation that what this conversation is about.
One side says no trans rights, and one side didn't bring it up in their speech, event though a couple of others did, which is far different from being anti trans.
"Sure, participating in a genocide is bad, but the other candidate would participate more"
One will actively aid in the genocide, the other may not. There's two options, one is better than the other. You can piss and moan all you want about it, but that's reality. Don't vote out of protest if that gets your rocks off, but it won't do any good for Palestine.
"May not" meaning, definitely will and currently is? Lol fuck off already
The adviser, Phil Gordon, said on social media on Thursday morning that Ms. Harris would “always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups.” He added: “She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”
Which part of that is pro genocide? In my opinion, I would like a stronger stance against Israel, but defending allies against attack and fighting to defend Gaza are not what you're claiming. Perhaps they will end up as empty words, but your claims are baseless as of right now. If Harris was already president, maybe you have an argument, but until then it's pure speculation.
Lmao. Supplying arms to israel while they are currently using them for genocide is participating in genocide.
When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality. The person that has the most support has the most power to intact change. Sometimes that means you have to crawl through shit to get there.
I'll take any bigot, racist, or whatever vote if that means the better candidate wins in November, because that alternative is the bigot, racist, racist. Better to fluff the controversial voters and hopefully win than lose an election because of a speech. And if she doesn't win, then it doesn't matter what she said anyway.
As though you consider any capitulation to fascism unfortunate.
Jesus christ.
If one candidate said they'd kill the jews, but the other said they'd just send them to camps (to appease that popular fascist voter), liberals would end up voting to send the jews to concentration camps.
This is how liberals end up siding with fascism
That might be true if anything even remotely close to that happened, but that is a completely different situation that what this conversation is about.
One side says no trans rights, and one side didn't bring it up in their speech, event though a couple of others did, which is far different from being anti trans.
"Sure, participating in a genocide is bad, but the other candidate would participate more"
One will actively aid in the genocide, the other may not. There's two options, one is better than the other. You can piss and moan all you want about it, but that's reality. Don't vote out of protest if that gets your rocks off, but it won't do any good for Palestine.
"May not" meaning, definitely will and currently is? Lol fuck off already
Can you tell the future?
No but I can hear them say "we will"
So, you're full of shit? Got it.
Kamala Harris says she does not support withholding lethal aid to Israel
The adviser, Phil Gordon, said on social media on Thursday morning that Ms. Harris would “always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups.” He added: “She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”
Which part of that is pro genocide? In my opinion, I would like a stronger stance against Israel, but defending allies against attack and fighting to defend Gaza are not what you're claiming. Perhaps they will end up as empty words, but your claims are baseless as of right now. If Harris was already president, maybe you have an argument, but until then it's pure speculation.
Lmao. Supplying arms to israel while they are currently using them for genocide is participating in genocide.