• NewDark@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    That’s a funny way to say: associated herself strongly with the genocide president and said how we were going to have the most lethal military in the world.

    But sure it was the laugh.

    Edit: liberals so insanely scratched below.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      If it was about genocide, trump wouldn’t have won. She should have been better, no question. However, she was less leaning towards genocide in Gaza than he was. So if that was the decider it was vote her or third party or nobody, yet rump still got 70million odd votes.

      • 7101334@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        If it was about genocide, trump wouldn’t have won.

        That makes no sense. Polls confirm Republicans care far less about the genocide than independents and Democrats. You need to appeal to your base to win.

        However, she was less leaning towards genocide in Gaza than he was

        She literally promised no deviation from Biden’s policies regarding Israel. Are you familiar with the story of the man with down syndrome who spoke his first and last words - “Habibi, please stop” - to a Zionazi attack dog who mauled him before they left him to die from his injuries, alone in his home? That’s what Harris promised no deviation from. If you expect people to vote for that, your soul is compromised.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yes, you need to appeal to your base to win. However, if voters are choosing between two candidates with almost identical positions on a topic, that’s not the deciding topic in that election.

          Maybe it should have been, but it wasn’t. If those against genocide really cared about it as their single issuez they would have still voted Harris, who promised nonchangez as opposed to trump who said he’d let Israel do whatever they want.

          It’s a fallacious argument.

          • 7101334@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            If those against genocide really cared about it as their single issuez they would have still voted Harris, who promised nonchangez as opposed to trump who said he’d let Israel do whatever they want.

            …Those are the same thing. Biden also let Israel do whatever they want.

            I am against genocide so I do not vote for genocide. A truly mind-boggling approach.

            • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 days ago

              But you still got genocide. Just now you have it with a side of fascist rule instead of without. Hope you’re not melanated and near a border.

        • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          If you’ve read the news this past year, no doubt you’ld be aware trump is doing what he said he’d do, and also did his first term. Good job! She wasn’t in charge when she made those statements. Trump IS.

          • 7101334@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 days ago

            Was she in charge of her own mouth when she promised no deviation from Biden’s policy of also letting Israel do whatever they want?

            You’re defending an avowed genocidaire. Evaluate what led you here.