The only difference is she would have said “this sets a dangerous precedent for the future of democracy”, get called an antisemite, and then walk back her statement without doing anything.
This is literally a situation where Kamala would do NOTHING AT ALL towards Israel different from what Trumps is doing - i.e. not doing anything about it.
Of all the possible scenarios you could use to point out that Lesser Evil is not Greater Evil, this is the worst one since Kamala would do the same toward Israel as Trump, but be more of an hypocrite about it (like saying some bullshit about “the US does not interfere with internal Israeli affairs” whilst sending them more bombs).
It would be way better to compare the actions of a possible non-Evil candidate that the Democracts should have fielded (but did not because the party is under the control of evil sociopaths) with those of Trump.
“What would Bernie have done?” sounds like a much better question to suggest here as the contrast with Trump would be huge.
Of course, pointing out that there are several Democrats who would act way differently from Trump or Kamala in this would bring up the point that a party which sidelined non-evil candidates in order to field a “as evil as possible but just shy of the other party’s” Presidential candidate needs to change and that would be questioning the perfection of he tribe and the quality of its chiefs, a step too far for a tribalist party faithful parroting “those who didn’t vote for Kamala ‘voted’ for Trump” DNC propaganda …
Say what you want but Kamala would not have stuck her micropenis in the Iranian hornets nest
Trump did. Gaza has still been obliterated. The rest of the middle east is on fire. The global economy is turbofucked for probably the rest of our lives.
Also netanyahu doesn’t have any tapes of Kamala from Jeffery.
So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).
Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.
The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.
Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.
One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.
The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.
Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.
I thought the subject was about how NOT to have somebody like Trump in power, which naturally means examining EVERYTHING that led to somebody like Trump ending in power, which certainly includes looking at how and why did the other party in the power duopoly system in the US field such a horrible candidate that she lost against somebody as bad as Trump.
Of course if your “subject” is not “how best to beat/avoid a Trump president” and instead is “the electorate should be subservient to the choices of ‘my Party’s leadership’”, I can see how it would seem to you that I changed subject by not going along with the whole “the choices of the DNC are above challenge by the riff-raff” view.
Party loyals never challenge the choices of those they see as their betters - the Party leadership - and instead blame the masses for not going along with them: it’s never “how can we better make sure people want to vote for us” and always “people are horrible for not voting for us”.
NOTHING AT ALL towards Israel different from what Trumps is doing
She would not have accepted the offer to build a luxury hotel on the bones of murdered women and children. She wouldn’t have convened the Genocide Planning Committee (oops, “Board of Peace”). Would she have told Netanyahu to “finish the job”? No.
Was her policy towards Gaza immoral and unacceptable? Yes. Was it identical to Trump’s? No. Is the US people’s situation now under Trump no worse than it would have been under Harris? Only an idiot would claim that.
And at least some of the Dems are now refusing AIPAC money. How many Republicans have done so?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of a party that would let someone like Schumer be one of its leaders. But I utterly despise this binary reductionism that has no end result but suppression of the anti-MAGA vote.
tribalist party faithful parroting “those who didn’t vote for Kamala ‘voted’ for Trump” DNC propaganda …
I’m not a Democrat, I’ll be happy to see the day when the DNC is comprehensively reformed or eliminated and AIPAC and other agents of foreign influence are illegal, but in the meantime I am a rational person who knows that a tactical vote for an imperfect party is better than letting jackbooted thugs and pedophiles run rampant.
but in the meantime I am a rational person who knows that a tactical vote for an imperfect party is better than letting jackbooted thugs and pedophiles run rampant.
I’m sorry but that’s only “rational” if your analysis is very superficial.
Tactical voting is exactly what has been happening in the US for DECADES and the outcome was ever more rightwing policies, social mobility crashing from almost 90% in the 70s to just over 10% now, increased poverty and so on, and even putting aside all social and economic issues and focusing only on political strategy, with this system the Democrat Party has not once but TWICE fielded a candidate so bad that they lost to somebody like Trump.
Logically doing more of the same would yield more of the same outcome - ever more rightwing populists getting elected - and the next time a far-right POTUS is elected (a guaranteed event if desperate people keep getting created in the US by falling median real incomes and opportunities alongside a captured Press specialized in blaming foreigners for it, because both parties have neoliberal policies) that next Fascist POTUS might actually be intelligent and hence even more dangerous than Trump.
Even in a fucked-up, undemocratic, power-duopoly system like the one in America, each vote isn’t simply an A/B choice that’s closed once done - the way things work in the US a vote is a cyclic choice where parties put forward their choices for candidates and the voters say “yes” or “no”, and then some years later the same happens again, so the response of voters to the candidates fielded in one cycle informs who the parties put forward in the subsequent cycle.
In other words, if people keep rejecting a certain style of candidate fielded by a party, that party is pushed to field a different style of candidate. This how the Republicans changed over the years fielding ever more far-right and populist candidates - voters responded badly to “serious conservatives” so the party fielded more and more “anti-immigrant loudmouths”. It’s funny that Republicans have been more responsive to their electorate than Democrats.
So each vote isn’t just a choice of POTUS, it’s also a message to the parties about the suitability of the candidate they have fielded and, last I checked, in Democracy it’s the obligation of parties to responde to voters rather than the other way around.
Under this broader analysis, the Kamala vs Trump result yields two possible views:
Millions of people were wrong in not voting for Kamala.
A few thousand people in the Democrat Party leadership were wrong in fielding somebody with insufficient appeal to voters as their candidate.
As I see it, if one is trully not a party loyalist and genuinelly wants avoid another Trump in the future, the most logical choice is to go with #2 for three reasons:
This is the SECOND time Trump won against the candidate chose by the Democrat Party leadership. Once might be chance, twice is not.
Success is more likely in changing what a few thousand people (the Democrat Party leadership) do than in changing what millions of people (the voters) do, so it makes more sense in focusing on the 2nd group when approportioning blame.
In Democracy it’s the obligation of the people who are competing to be the elected REPRESENTATIVES of the electorate to appeal to the electorate, not for the electorate to simply comply with the choices of “leaders”. The US isn’t supposed to be like Russia were people are expected to not question the leader.
If one’s objective trully is to avoid having another Trump in power in the US, then logically the most effective way to do so is to push the DNC leadership to change (or replace them) since those people are VASTLY more powerful than votes and are fewer in number so change there is not only way more effective but also more likely.
Sadly, there’s a lot of people driven by party loyalism parroting “blame voters” self-serving propaganda from the DNC in order to avoid that those party leaders suffer repeatedly choosing candidates that don’t appeal to voters.
putin has her come out of the permafrost every 4 years. Surprisingly both her and rfk jr had 1million+votes each, thats mean there were 2 million dumb conservatives that voted for “not trump”
Where are all the “But Kamala will be worse for Gaza” people at?
We are months away from them just setting up mobile crematoriums at the end of the exit hallway from an empty courtroom.
Whats that? They were pretty much all bots? Crazy.
What would she have done differently, and why said different policy has not been implemented before?
The only difference is she would have said “this sets a dangerous precedent for the future of democracy”, get called an antisemite, and then walk back her statement without doing anything.
This is literally a situation where Kamala would do NOTHING AT ALL towards Israel different from what Trumps is doing - i.e. not doing anything about it.
Of all the possible scenarios you could use to point out that Lesser Evil is not Greater Evil, this is the worst one since Kamala would do the same toward Israel as Trump, but be more of an hypocrite about it (like saying some bullshit about “the US does not interfere with internal Israeli affairs” whilst sending them more bombs).
It would be way better to compare the actions of a possible non-Evil candidate that the Democracts should have fielded (but did not because the party is under the control of evil sociopaths) with those of Trump.
“What would Bernie have done?” sounds like a much better question to suggest here as the contrast with Trump would be huge.
Of course, pointing out that there are several Democrats who would act way differently from Trump or Kamala in this would bring up the point that a party which sidelined non-evil candidates in order to field a “as evil as possible but just shy of the other party’s” Presidential candidate needs to change and that would be questioning the perfection of he tribe and the quality of its chiefs, a step too far for a tribalist party faithful parroting “those who didn’t vote for Kamala ‘voted’ for Trump” DNC propaganda …
Say what you want but Kamala would not have stuck her micropenis in the Iranian hornets nest
Trump did. Gaza has still been obliterated. The rest of the middle east is on fire. The global economy is turbofucked for probably the rest of our lives.
Also netanyahu doesn’t have any tapes of Kamala from Jeffery.
¯\(ツ)/¯
So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).
Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.
The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.
Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.
I suppose I forgot that Bernie was the Democrat candidate in 2024?
One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.
The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.
Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.
n>ever seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala
So you’re not even capable of discussing an either/or comparison without changing the subject?
I thought the subject was about how NOT to have somebody like Trump in power, which naturally means examining EVERYTHING that led to somebody like Trump ending in power, which certainly includes looking at how and why did the other party in the power duopoly system in the US field such a horrible candidate that she lost against somebody as bad as Trump.
Of course if your “subject” is not “how best to beat/avoid a Trump president” and instead is “the electorate should be subservient to the choices of ‘my Party’s leadership’”, I can see how it would seem to you that I changed subject by not going along with the whole “the choices of the DNC are above challenge by the riff-raff” view.
Party loyals never challenge the choices of those they see as their betters - the Party leadership - and instead blame the masses for not going along with them: it’s never “how can we better make sure people want to vote for us” and always “people are horrible for not voting for us”.
She would not have accepted the offer to build a luxury hotel on the bones of murdered women and children. She wouldn’t have convened the Genocide Planning Committee (oops, “Board of Peace”). Would she have told Netanyahu to “finish the job”? No.
Was her policy towards Gaza immoral and unacceptable? Yes. Was it identical to Trump’s? No. Is the US people’s situation now under Trump no worse than it would have been under Harris? Only an idiot would claim that.
And at least some of the Dems are now refusing AIPAC money. How many Republicans have done so?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of a party that would let someone like Schumer be one of its leaders. But I utterly despise this binary reductionism that has no end result but suppression of the anti-MAGA vote.
I’m not a Democrat, I’ll be happy to see the day when the DNC is comprehensively reformed or eliminated and AIPAC and other agents of foreign influence are illegal, but in the meantime I am a rational person who knows that a tactical vote for an imperfect party is better than letting jackbooted thugs and pedophiles run rampant.
I’m sorry but that’s only “rational” if your analysis is very superficial.
Tactical voting is exactly what has been happening in the US for DECADES and the outcome was ever more rightwing policies, social mobility crashing from almost 90% in the 70s to just over 10% now, increased poverty and so on, and even putting aside all social and economic issues and focusing only on political strategy, with this system the Democrat Party has not once but TWICE fielded a candidate so bad that they lost to somebody like Trump.
Logically doing more of the same would yield more of the same outcome - ever more rightwing populists getting elected - and the next time a far-right POTUS is elected (a guaranteed event if desperate people keep getting created in the US by falling median real incomes and opportunities alongside a captured Press specialized in blaming foreigners for it, because both parties have neoliberal policies) that next Fascist POTUS might actually be intelligent and hence even more dangerous than Trump.
Even in a fucked-up, undemocratic, power-duopoly system like the one in America, each vote isn’t simply an A/B choice that’s closed once done - the way things work in the US a vote is a cyclic choice where parties put forward their choices for candidates and the voters say “yes” or “no”, and then some years later the same happens again, so the response of voters to the candidates fielded in one cycle informs who the parties put forward in the subsequent cycle.
In other words, if people keep rejecting a certain style of candidate fielded by a party, that party is pushed to field a different style of candidate. This how the Republicans changed over the years fielding ever more far-right and populist candidates - voters responded badly to “serious conservatives” so the party fielded more and more “anti-immigrant loudmouths”. It’s funny that Republicans have been more responsive to their electorate than Democrats.
So each vote isn’t just a choice of POTUS, it’s also a message to the parties about the suitability of the candidate they have fielded and, last I checked, in Democracy it’s the obligation of parties to responde to voters rather than the other way around.
Under this broader analysis, the Kamala vs Trump result yields two possible views:
As I see it, if one is trully not a party loyalist and genuinelly wants avoid another Trump in the future, the most logical choice is to go with #2 for three reasons:
If one’s objective trully is to avoid having another Trump in power in the US, then logically the most effective way to do so is to push the DNC leadership to change (or replace them) since those people are VASTLY more powerful than votes and are fewer in number so change there is not only way more effective but also more likely.
Sadly, there’s a lot of people driven by party loyalism parroting “blame voters” self-serving propaganda from the DNC in order to avoid that those party leaders suffer repeatedly choosing candidates that don’t appeal to voters.
Have you heard from jill stein?
putin has her come out of the permafrost every 4 years. Surprisingly both her and rfk jr had 1million+votes each, thats mean there were 2 million dumb conservatives that voted for “not trump”
She’s on a break, getting her aura cleansed.
Tired of Americans making everything about scoring points in their internal politics.
You say that but those weirdos are still out there
putin saw no reason to issue those videos after the election ended.