551
Pieces
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
551 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
2645 readers
741 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Who said anything about "going hard against Israel"? And it's not like there's a report that contradicts your claim, right?
You have no idea how I voted. Op suggested that people didn't vote for her for trivial reasons, which trivialises the real documented reason of expressly supporting a genocide.
We can make an educated guess. Thank goodness for Gazans (and Lebanese) that Harris didn't become president. That would have been a disaster!
Yes, it would have been. That's why the anti-genocidists were against her. But the Democrats decided they'd rather lose to Trump, than stop supporting genocide.
I guarantee you're wrong about how I voted. And why are you moving the goal posts? Harris stated clearly that she wouldn't change anything when dealing with Israel and she wanted to make Israel the most violent army in the world, so it's very likely that the situation in Gaza and Lebanon would be very similar. It was already a disaster when Biden was president.
lmao. People don't take you seriously because you say shit like this.
You're right about that one phrase, I mixed it up with something else. She did state that she would continue to support arming Israel unconditionally.
Everything else I said still stands, and you haven't addressed any of it.
OK well Harris sucks but there were only two horsies in the race. Did you vote strategically for the objectively better candidate?
There were more than two horses, but Liberals refuse to understand the concept of "not voting for genocide", so that only left two candidates for them.
Yes.
Look, we had pretty much a textbook trolley problem where it was objectively correct* to pick the track with fewer casualties. But now that the train has gone, we need to lay responsibility squarely with those who tied the casualties to the tracks in the first place.
(*One reason for choosing the other track was to give the democrats their own trolley problem, choosing between getting elected or leaving casualties on their track. And they chose the latter. Now we're seeing more progressive candidates emerge so arguably it worked. Was it worth the cost? That's harder to decide since we'd have to estimate the long term costs of a hypothetical scenario.)
But regardless of what the objectively correct choice was, belittling those who disagreed by trivialising their reasons or absolving the architects of the dilemma of responsibility is just wrong.
We're not going to know if the accelerationist strategy of making the Democrats powerless to encourage people to elect Dem Socs will work for years. What I know is that fractally corrupt fascists are in power now, ICE gestapo are in my streets now, we are at war with Iran now, and Israel has accelerated its ethnic cleansing of Gaza and Lebanon now. Am I happy DSA candidates are winning? Sure! Was it worth it? Nah. New York could have tolerated another round with Cuomo, but can America withstand four more years of Trump? We've lost so much in 18 months, and he has another two years and change. (At least.)
I'm not trivializing people's reasons for not voting for Harris. Those reasons, set across from the alternative, were objectively trivial. If your key issue was Gaza, Trump is worse. If your key issue is the economy, Trump is worse. If your key issue is privacy, government overreach, persecution of whistleblowers, freedom of the press. Name any issue and Trump is worse, and it was obvious he is worse from the first go 'round. It's hard to treat someone's reasons for voting MAGA or not voting at all as legitimate or informed when the alternative is voting for the worse option or declaring that both options are equally bad. I'm honestly more angry with the self-righteous abstainers than I am with MAGA dolts. MAGA is a cult. I don't expect those people to know better or make good choices. The people who are chronically online following every political scandal? They knew better and they failed to do their duty as citizens.
She expressly supported a genocide - really? Got a link for that?
Look, I voted for Kamala because lesser evil > greater evil. That being said, she did express support for Israel through maintaining arms sales and military assistance.
Like, everyone recognizes that Kamala would have been marginally better than Trump. She still would have been a bad president, just not a bad president responsible for fucking the economy. Status quo and all that.
Yes she did express support for Isreal - but not for Isreal to commit genocide. You might think it was a genocide happening at the time, but most people then saw it as them fighting Hammas without taking enough care about civilians.
It was after Trump encouraged Netanyahu to wipe out all Palestinians, that things got significantly worse. I don't think Harris would have encouraged genocide. I think she would have even pushed back somewhat against human right violations eventually.
She would have pushed back when it was politically convenient, if it became politically convenient.
I worked for the DoJ under her. The corruption was there before her and got worse under her. She is not the saint you, for some reason, think she is. An important thing to keep in mind is that simply because they've been demonized by the right does not somehow make them a good person.
Case in point: Gavin Newsom.
No, most people saw it as genocide. She just pretended it wasn't happening because it was inconvenient for her.
Biden never did, in fact, he openly supported it. Why would she be any different? Since when has Democratic leadership cared about human-right violations?