Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped “wars with France,” after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to “close the deal.”
…
Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.
Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.
because most major media supports trump.
You mean the ones whos mega-rich owners are being promised massive tax cuts by trump? Those very same ones?
I’m shocked to my core. I’m glad I was sitting down when I read your comment.
But but but there’s no direct physical evidence of these major media owners handing giant round bags of cash with big dollar signs on them to trump personally while they twirl their moustaches!!!
Don’t you see - we can’t know if they support him or not!
/s obvs christ some people on here are russian trolls or steadfastly refuse to understand a goddamned thing
A lot of them aren’t just in it for the tax cuts but because they like the ideology.
And the few sources that may not be owned by Trump-backing Nazis still have to have their horse race. They want to make it seem close to get clicks and sell ads.
Trump is the best thing to happen for News Media since 9/11.
And they would do anything to have another 4 years of people obsessively watching/viewing/clicking all day every day to see what insane thing hes done to the country next.
One side’s supporters partook in the education system while the other went to church?
They’re accustomed to gibberish…
I hate to be a downer, but “it’s not fair” doesn’t really matter at this point. Trump continues to gain, and he’s babbling incoherently most days and being quite clear that he plans to be a fascist from day one. Whether it’s fair or not, there’s is a huge double standard. If Harris does anything wrong she loses support. Trump daily explains gleefully how he’s going to take away civil rights, begin mass deportations, purge the federal government and fill it with loyalists, and on, and on, and on, and on, and he’s been slowly but steadily gaining support for a month.
Is there a huge, glaring double standard? Yes, absolutely. Does it matter for the blunt reality of the upcoming election? No, not at all.
Can we stop putting up articles stuck behind paywalls please?
They just want the headline anyways
It’s obvious that there is a double standard but it’s too late to point it out.
Time is up.
If people are “undecided” they aren’t going to even consider media fairness or maybe even logic at this point.
It’s Donald Fuckin Trump. Rapist. Fascist. Liar. Cheat. Insert hundreds of other negatives and reasons why he should not have power and be in jail.
It’s voting time. That’s all that’s left. He won the media and the narrative enough to make it a race at all. Pointing it out now is fruitless - he got away with that shit for his purposes.
Looking at the fivethiryeight predictions pages, Trump already has a lock or lean right on 262 votes, and Harris is at 226. Harris has to take Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan or its over, and her voters are in disarray and are half hearted while trumps always vote stronger than polling indicates. It looks to be effectively over unless Harris makes some big changes to energize her base. She’s sure as hell not going to get anything by pissing off even more people by digging rightward, but I’d bet real money that thats what she will try.
If she’d pledge to stop the weapons flow on day 1 she’d have the race, but she wont do that, for whatever reason.
I think she’ll take Michigan.
A lot of people are answering undecided on polls in protest over Harris support for the Israeli genocide but intend to actually vote for her due to the significantly worse threat posed by Trump. She could massively improve her polling numbers by just committing to stopping arms shipments to Israel and imposing sanctions on them.
One side expects their candidates to hold some standards, the other side doesn’t care. It’s like watching a sporting event with a homer who only sees the world based on how it effects their team winning or losing. Fairness doesn’t come into play, the other side is always cheating and getting favored media exposure.
Centrists look on Trump’s base and wonder why they can’t have a mindless cult too.
Trump is targeting mostly far-right evangelicals who have a common vision on what they want the country to look like. He has a lot of energy when doing so, and because of how similar their interests are he could get away with all sorts of stuff and they would still vote for him.
Harris (and Democrats in general) is the only alternative mainstream candidate that everyone else has, and that “everyone else” consists of all sorts of people with conflicting interests: liberals, neoliberals, centrists, progressives, leftists, different religious groups or cultures, varying economic demographics, racial minorities, LGBTQ, and immigrants for instance. They’re trying to appeal to all of them at once, but because they don’t have a shared vision, nobody is happy and they get more scrutinized. To make at least some of them happy, they need to focus on certain groups and deprioritize the interests of other groups. However, once they do that then the groups they deprioritize get angry since they no longer have representation, and the groups that are still there remain skeptical because of the history of not working for their interests in the past.
The advantage that third parties like PSL have is that from the start, they’re trying to appeal to a specific group of people with a common vision like Trump is instead of trying to play both sides with conflicting groups and making nobody happy. The problem (aside from the election duopoly bought out by corporations) is that they are a very small political minority so they have no real chance of winning the election without winning over people from other groups which is a challenge, especially when there are many more unknowns when it comes to progressing than there are when it comes to reverting to a previous state so there is more fragmentation due to those sort of disagreements.
One side must bring peace to the middle east, the other side is allowed to tell Israel to kill Palestinians faster.
And before someone comes defending their stance not to vote for either genocidal enabler, why aren’t you trying to save as many people as possible? Are you ok with more people dying because of your ideals? Enjoy living with that choice if he wins.
I’m not even American but this voter-shaming is both frustrating to read and fucking stupid. Nobody—and I repeat, nobody—is going to vote because they were blamed by a random guy on the internet who refuses to acknowledge their very real concern that voting for Harris would be voting for genocide.
And not voting for Harris gets you three genocides. Gaza, Ukraine, and the LGBTQ community at home. So, yeah, anyone that “can’t vote for genocide” is a moron or a shill.
Again, if this shit worked Trump wouldn’t have won in 2016.
Cool. If people weren’t acting like morons I wouldn’t be calling them morons and if I was part of the Harris campaign instead of some asshole on the Internet I might try to be more diplomatic about it. But I’m not going to coddle a bunch of people who are too stupid to understand the implications of a two party system.
Is it too much to ask her to go on a 10 minute rant about someone she showered with had the best vagina and every single lady that showered with her spoke highly of how great her vagina is?
Kamala isn’t really standing for anything, is trying to be too safe, and I don’t think it’s going too work to well
[What the fuck are you talking about?] (https://kamalaharris.com/issues)
This is exactly the issue that the post is about
Vice President Harris grew up in a middle class home as the daughter of a working mom. She believes that when the middle class is strong, America is strong. That’s why as President, Kamala Harris will create an Opportunity Economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed — whether they live in a rural area, small town, or big city.
Vice President Kamala Harris has made clear that building up the middle class will be a defining goal of her presidency. That’s why she will make it a top priority to bring down costs and increase economic security for all Americans. As President, she will fight to cut taxes for more than 100 million working and middle class Americans while lowering the costs of everyday needs like health care, housing, and groceries. She will bring together organized labor and workers, small business owners, entrepreneurs, and American companies to create good paying jobs, grow the economy, and ensure that America continues to lead the world.
There is not a single policy included in this two paragraph long statement.
It’s the most transparent Politician Speak, saying an earful while telling you absolutely nothing.
If you could have bothered to read a few lines more, there’s an entire 76-page PDF attached outlining plans and goals.
Now I’m not asking you to read the whole thing, but you’re being disingenuous.
there’s an entire 76-page PDF
How much of it is more fluff like this?
Now I’m not asking you to read the whole thing
If you’d like to single out the policies you think are meaningful, I’ll happily pick through that chapter. But if the first two paragraphs are empty pablum, I’m not wasting my time with the next fifty.
“The introduction isn’t an in depth policy explanation.”
Fuck off.
But if the first two paragraphs are empty pablum, I’m not wasting my time with the next fifty
Great idea. Have a good day.
I’ll take the downvotes, but a large part of this is because she’s a woman. “One candidate (a man) can rant about gibberish while the other (a woman) has to be perfect.” doesn’t just apply to politics, this sounds like every office I’ve ever worked in.
For sure.
It does not help that her town hall tone was very… very … I don’t know… pleading/worrying/low energy. I almost had Hillary feelings at some points.
She had fire, spirit… her campaign has toned down a lot since the DNC… Which is unfortunate.
Edit! For the Down voters, I never said trump good… he’s horrible. I was merely pointing out that her messaging changed, probably under the directions of the DNC. Cookie cutter plain answers… everything focus grouped.
For sure.
It does not help that her…
And there it is, folks.
There is what? I can see the difference between pre DNC Kamala and post DNC, can’t you? The tone is more tempered and she is sometimes almost whiney in her conversations, way too coached.
Before the DNC she was way more relatable, joyous, and direct. A powerfully woman that I think a lot of people looked up to. Now every answer goes back to the talking points… she hardly answered any questions or committed to anything. Even her running mate toned down.
She is still a better choice over a rambling senile fascist but I think the US deserve the pre DNC Kamala and I hope that’s what they get when she is elected. A powerfully woman that is not controlled by the democratic party.
The double standards applied to her are misogynistic and the media is doing everything to samewash trump and put weight on Kamala to be perfect. Trump has concepts of a plan and the media goes on and on how Kamala should show direct policy plans and have it all figured out. Trump was president for 4 years but her track record as VICE president seems to be the point of debate. It’s disgusting.
From a non Americans viewpoint I also have to say that it probably does not help that the Dems platform now seems very close to bush republicans on a lot of things… the Overton window moved… a lot.
There is what?
there’s the ridiculous double standard.
take every critique you have for her - pleading/worrying/low energy - they all apply in spades IF NOT MORE to trump.
and no one’s questioned Kamala’s loyalties, but Trump’s talking to putin on the regular.
YET SOMEHOW THIS IS STILL A CONTEST? double standard bullshit
As a gay black man I see no reason to believe you are who youre claiming to be and I don’t care for identity politics anyway.
You’re wrong. Most people here don’t agree with you. Get over it.
Edit! For the Down voters, I never said trump good… he’s horrible
No centrist cares. They see any admission that Harris is anything other than perfect as Trump support.
a large part of this is because she’s a woman.
the slogan I’ve seen on some shirts, “Good thing we are only looking for equality and not revenge” comes to mind.
As a straight white man, I wouldn’t mind wearing a shirt that says “Good thing they only want equality and not revenge” and let people guess who it is referring to.
Weird that this has to be explained this late into the game but…
Trump is running on the promise of enacting fascism and using state power to mete out retribution to the ‘undesirables’ that his voters blame for their lack of power. To this end there is nothing he can say or do that will make them not vote for him. He is promising power and as long as he wins his promise is kept.
Kamala is running on a platform of ‘not fascism’ and to that end she does need to provide a coherent alternate worldview to mindless retribution. It’s not enough for her to walk the middle of the road and say as little as possible. She needs to give people a diametrically opposed worldview. She needs to be capable of explaining why fascist retribution isn’t good or helpful. She can not just be a diet Republican. She needs to have coherent answers to their obvious bullshit.
Hope this helps. Horrifying that the people who are a decade into Trumpism and ostensibly responsible for stopping it don’t seem to have the slightest clue what motivates it or how to counter it.
She has been talking about a different way of doing things though, I got the feeling she talked about many policies in the debate that people have ignored.
Non American here, but it really feels like there is nothing she can do to shake the non-trump thing. Lemmy is full of “Trump bad”, but I’m missing the “Kamala good”. Its as though no one wants to say it, and it feels like it always comes back to Israel. That is understandable too, however she is not a one policy candidate, however it feels like that is how its reduced.
Honestly I get the feeling that its either:
- People being very opposed to one policy enough that its blinding them
- Literal trolls trying to make enough noise to make it a trump vs. Non-trump to disenfranchise the voters
I want to see the “Kamala stands good on policy X” posts here. They should exist but where are they?
No I dont condone the Israel shit, but there has to be more to it. That’s too simple.
Is she?
She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights. Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border. She is pro imperialism. She isn’t committed to climate change. She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews? She’s not even that strong on abortion rights.
She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights.
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to, but if you’re referring to the Fox News interview, I think she addressed trans rights as well as she possibly could’ve to…a Fox News audience…without completely losing them.
Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border.
I call BS.
She isn’t committed to climate change
That’s too strong a statement. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal, gave an entire speech about climate change at COP28 and again this past July, and has an entire “Lower Energy Costs and Tackle the Climate Crisis” section on her issues page. On top of that, actions speak louder than words, and the one meaningful action she can wield as VP - casting tie-breaking Senate votes - was used to enact the Inflation Reduction Act, which works in a meaningful way to combat climate change.
She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews?
Idk what your metric for “meaningful wealth redistribution is” but the kind of “wealth redistribution” many middle Americans want is the kind where they can afford to start a new family, and/or afford their first home, and/or afford to start a new business. All of those have been addressed explicitly by Harris and her policy plan, and they go meaningfully beyond what we have now. Your other comment that she’d ‘raise the top marginal tax rate by 5% or whatever’ makes it sound like that’s literally the only action she’d take to make the lives of middle-class people better.
She’s not even that strong on abortion rights.
You’re not outright saying she’s weak on abortion, b/c I think you and I both know she isn’t - she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.
-
https://therealnews.com/as-democrats-fold-to-the-gop-immigrants-pay-the-price
-
https://www.newsweek.com/dnc-2024-immigration-border-daca-kamala-harris-1942685
-
https://whyy.org/articles/harris-climate-energy-policy-domestic-oil-drilling/
-
https://jacobin.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-economic-plans-verdict
-
https://fortune.com/2024/10/01/harris-economic-plan-middle-class-discontent-politics/
she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.
You’re missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible. What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?–
I appreciate the sources but c’mon dude, you could at least format stuff a bit.
First off, to your immigration sources: they’d support a claim like “Democrats are appealing to conservatives on immigration policy”, not “Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border”. That’s a BS exaggeration.
To your link to Harris’ interview: She was asked if she trans people should have broad gender-affirming care access. Her answer was “I believe that people, as the law states, even on this issue about federal law, that that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I’m not going to put myself in a position of a doctor”. That’s a 2-for-1 answer - “decisions should be left to doctors and patients” + “To any conservatives listening, that’s not just my belief, that’s the fucking law”. Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.
To your economic sources: sure, those are food for thought. Here’re some more:
Nobel Laureate Letter of endorsement for Harris’ Economic Plan Perspective of former US Treasury Chief Economist Perspective by Economic Professor at University of Regensburg Perspective by NHC Perspectives of various other economists
Her implementation of the plan will matter more than what’s on paper, but that’s true of virtually any other economic plan she could propose. In any case “she’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth” is still a matter of what you define as “meaningful”, and I assert that your definition is different from that of the average middle American.
To your climate sources: All this is saying is that drilling may likely go up under Harris. If that were all that mattered, I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too. And I’d disagree, because what matters isn’t just reducing dirty energy production, it’s about accelerating clean energy production. So again, BS exaggeration.
> What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?
What a loaded last question. “And never do it” like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.
Yes, I know that’s probably not what you meant, but your only legitimate questions are the filibuster question and the “reigning in question” (The FDA already approves mifepristone, expanding approval doesn’t mean jack if the SC knocks it down).
To both those statements, to your entire post as a whole, and to this little quote in particular:
> You’re missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible.
I say: you’re the one missing the point, by ignoring the context of the thread you started. You opened with your opinion on why Trump’s fascism appeals to people, and you claim she has to give an “alternate worldview” to turn people away from that.
You can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS. Nor will she sway those people by talking more strongly about resolving the climate crisis, about protecting trans rights, about supporting abortion, about chilling out on illegal immigrants, etc. There is practically no one who wants her to take stronger left-leaning stances on all those things AND will vote for Trump instead. I only say “practically” because if the odds of that were say, 1:100mil, then hey, maybe a couple voters will do that. Everybody else? Not bought into Trump at all.
If you really do honestly feel Harris needs to go way farther left, then you’re just projecting what YOU want onto the people who are okay with Trump’s fascism.
That’s a BS exaggeration.
It’s literally not. They ran to the right of what Republicans wanted. There are countless articles talking about how it was everything and more than Republicans wanted and they only turned it down over politics. I can find literally dozens of these articles:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/
https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/5/24062710/senate-immigration-bill-border-security-ukraine-2024
Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.
She literally got up on national TV and when was asked a direct, completely basic question about whether or not she supported trans peoples most fundamental issues, deflected, dodged and refused to give a vocal endorsement of their rights. You can not be serious with this answer, you know how bad this looks. Literally all she had to do was say “I support trans rights” or any other generic statement but she didn’t because she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she’s hard pivoting to the right.
I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too.
Haha, incredible. Do you think that Biden IS committed to climate change? Like in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is? His administration straight up lied about ‘no new drilling’. They laughed at the Green New Deal. Democrats are all talk on the environment.
like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.
Will she prioritize it? Or will she pull an Obama who had the chance to do it but said “It wasnt the highest priority”? You think it’s just gonna land on her desk with a wave of a magic wand? Will she FIGHT for it? Or are we getting another “I think we should obey the law” in a couple years.
ou can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS.
It’s about more than one single issue. Its about having a defined set of values that you care about and can be held accountable to. Being “Not Donald Trump” isn’t that. You know why most Americans like Bernie Sanders? (Yes even the conservatives who scream about socialism) Because he’s been saying the same shit for 30 years. You don’t have to worry about him going up on a stage and wonder if he’s going to suddenly backtrack on Medicare for All with some “I think we should follow the law” non-answer. He has values that he expresses, even when they’re unpopular. Do you even really know what Kamala believes in? Or is she campaigning on whatever happens to be polling at 51% or better? For better or worse we all know what Trump believes in.
No you’re not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster or any given single policy issue. You get them to flip by demonstrating a clear set of values and sticking to them, so that when they have doubts about fascism they can look at the other side and know what it stands for. They know that there’s a moral argument to be made for any of these policy decisions because the democratic leadership has spent every opportunity to educate about them.
These people are inundated with propaganda 24/7. If all they hear from the right is about how immigrants are rapists who steal our jobs and are flooding the border like a zombie apocalypse movie, and then they go to the left to see that the Democrats kind of agree but think we should only deport 50% of the immigrants instead of 100% of them and want the border to be only slightly more lethal, what conclusion do you think they’re going to draw? Imagine for a second we had democratic leadership that weren’t straight up cowards and NOW when undecideds look to the left they hear about how the vast majority of illegal immigration is due to overstayed visas and the border is kind of a sham topic. Now they hear that the border is already the deadliest border crossing in the world by a large margin and making it 5% deadlier isn’t going to fix the issue. Now they hear that immigrants pay taxes into the system and don’t get them back out, and are the foundation of many of our industries that would collapse without them (there’s other issues here obviously). Now they hear about the cost of detaining and deporting people and they hear about what asylum means.
THAT’s what it means to present an alternate world view. If you’re offering people a choice between a Republican who is going to 100% deliver on fascism or a Democrat who barely knows what they stand for and is going to diddle around for 4 years and never make a coherent case for anything, or at best offers some Diet Republican policy, people are gonna just pick the fascist.
I can’t take you seriously. Not after you post a lazily constructed list of links, some of which are your response to me calling your border claim false, only for you then to be like “no actually wait here are more links for what I was actually trying to say”, only for the links to still not back your BS that democrats went “to the right of republicans”. (If you wanna point at anything specific to actually attempt to make your point, then go for it, but if it doesn’t actually back you then stop wasting my time with this).
Also not after you again ignore the specific question she was asked (do you support gender affirming care) and the answer I already quoted her giving (yes, it’s a matter between doctors and patients) so you can claim to know that the precise reason she used her words and not yours is “she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she’s hard pivoting to the right.”
Not after claiming to believe that Biden doesn’t care about climate change - no wait, that maybe he does, but not “in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is” kind of way, as though the policy matching that intensity (shutting off all fossil fuel production tomorrow) isn’t a move that’ll DEFINITELY get Trump elected so he can steer us full speed ahead into a climate catastrophe.
Not after acknowledging yourself that “you’re not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster” but playing that off like it’s just a random “given single policy issue”.
And certainly not after evoking Bernie Sanders as a positive figure, who is himself urging people to vote for Kamala.
The rest of your comment makes it very clear that you’re dug in, that you earnestly believe your projection onto all 70+ million people who are gonna vote for Trump, and that if Kamala was exactly the candidate you wish she was, that she’d magically sway people inundated with Fox News 24/7 because you have it all figured out.
Based on what you’ve said I wouldn’t be surprised if you either intend to vote for Stein or De La Cruz, or just want to push other people to do that.
It’s not just “one policy” though. That kind of reduces it to a bloodless difference of opinion or something. We’re not haggling over tax rates or something, this is a literal, ongoing genocide. If Kamala is wrong on genocide, she can’t be “good”, no matter what other policy positions she has.
Sure. I totally understand that, but the stakes are different during an election in a system which at this very moment cannot and will not change. It serves to disenfranchise people.
You can and should campaign about this issue. At the same time, the stakes at present are not about whether the US will exit Israel or not. No amount of disapproval will change that fact, so why not focus on the things that will change, and come back to this later?
There’s no “coming back to this later”. People are being slaughtered as we speak. Later is too late. If we swallow this, then we’ve lost everything.
How is letting Donald “finish them” “best king of Israel” “Biden is trying to hold Netanyahu back, he should do the opposite” Trump (who admits he is on the phone almost daily convincing Netanyahu NOT TO CEASEFIRE) not going to be WORSE for Gaza.
If you even gave the tiniest of real shits about the Palestinian people, you would drop your sham “voter purity” nonsense and campaign as hard as you could for the one person who can possibly keep him from becoming commander in chief at a time when we really need an emotionally mature grown up in the White House: Kamala Harris.
They are being finished now. Biden is not doing anything to “hold Netanyahu back”. Calling me a political purist for condemning unmitigated support of genocide is disgusting. If you don’t want Trump to win, don’t come at me about it-- come at the fucking democrat leadership who apparently care more about perpetuating atrocities in Gaza than winning the election.
Trump is spending time and effort unravelling whose ceasefire deal? Biden’s.
So like a true trump supporter, you blame the democrats for what the republicans are doing.
I didn’t call you a political purist. You’re really not. I called out your sham “voter purity” where you pretend to care about Gaza and then advocate for lunatic geriatric genocidal trump to win.
Oh then what if we had more than two parties ?
Oh, they all get called traitors.
First you have to fix the electoral college and FPTP voting. Because until those are removed, you’re always going to end up with effectively a two party system. And if one of those parties is pledging to replace the system with fascism, well, then you’ve only got one democratic option to vote for, no matter their platform.
Once you can rank your options? THEN multiple candidates makes sense.
The misogyny is thick.
