Not my favorite candidate. By any means. Better than what we have with Trump? Absolutely undisputed. It’s not even a conversation. Wild that someone would even try to contend it.
I’m just in the spectator seats, we have preferential voting in Australia (not a perfect implementation, but probably one of the best in the world.)
Despite this, still under capitalism. So. Not rosy.
Just that, not voting tactically - while fighting like hell to get a third party candidate in, or get enough members of the less shit party to push through voting reform - is stupid.
It’s stupid.
A shit candidate that’s less shit, is still less shit.
This is the spoiler effect, and being high and mighty about not having voted is your copium. There may well have been enough people like you to have avoided a Trump presidency.
And if you think there’s no difference? Then you’re getting high on your own righteous supply.
Anyway, I’ll be over here enjoying my slightly left of centre government, and actually have a viable pathway to getting further left parties elected here. 🎩🦘
You’re insufferable because you think you’re better than everyone else who actually understands how the voting system works.
In most of the US, who you vote for literally doesn’t matter, because your state will go to the candidate from whatever party has won your state for the last couple decades. Unless you live in the 8 or so states that could actually, realistically flip in a given election cycle, there’s literally no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.
Going into any given election, I can say with high certainty that my state will go to the dominant party with a 15% split with very high confidence, and that all votes outside of the top two will be under 5%. The only way for this to not happen is for the minority party to run a very strong candidate, the majority party to run a very unpopular candidate, and for a large third party to steal a ton of votes from the majority party… And even then, you’ll probably trim the gap to 5% or so and the majority party candidate will still win by inertia.
If you understand that, you can be free to actually vote your conscience and pick one of the third party candidates. If third party candidates collectively get enough votes to actually spoil an election in your area, maybe you have a chance to get voting reform discussed on the media, and if the majority candidate doesn’t get 51% because of it, maybe it features in the debates.
So until the gap between the top two candidates narrows to where all third party voters collectively voting for the second candidate could actually flip the state, I’ll keep voting for a third party candidate.
To your point, at least for third party voters, only two states had enough third party participation to even theoretically move the end result: Michigan and Wisconsin. So even if every person that voted third party instead voted for Harris, she would have still lost 287:251 (though she would have won the symbolic victory of popular vote).
Of course, there’s more than just a single election in the country, so more important to keep active in down ballot races.
The biggest potential complaint of consequence would be non-voters/people who boycotted the election, but no way of knowing anything about it.
Still it is utterly obnoxious when someone seems to act all high and mighty that they didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.
In most of the US, who you vote for literally doesn’t matter, because your state will go to the candidate from whatever party has won your state for the last couple decades. Unless you live in the 8 or so states that could actually, realistically flip in a given election cycle, there’s literally no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.
I am aware of this, last I checked there were number electorates where non-voters (as compared with 2020) and third-party voters could have swayed the outcome. My assertion that not voting for the lesser of two evils where possible to do so is dumb in general. I am aware that certain places it is pointless to vote for the democrats.
Especially with the hodge-podge nature of it not really bring a federal election, and instead being a bunch of state/territory elections with different rules for each (gross).
If you understand that [you’re in a very safe seat], you can be free to actually vote your conscience and pick one of the third party candidates
I agree. Where I draw the line is in seats where it is possible to vote lesser of two evils.
Seems you understand tactical voting quite well! I have no issue with you.
I only have a problem with the drop-kicks that assert tactical voting is morally wrong, instead of necessary.
If she had run a competent campaign she would have won, I’d say that the DNC chose incorrectly but that’s not true either, they chose a candidate that aligned with the interests of their billionaire backers because they knew they’d get paid whether she won or not
If she had run a competent campaign she would have won
Lol. The fact that you think Kamala didn’t run a competent campaign, while her opponent was a felon rapist who has confirmed lied more than any other president in U.S. history, sent a mob to our capitol to assault police, illegally attempted to overturn an election, and makes time every single day to divide Americans tells me all I need to know about your intellectual capacity.
Anyone that points a finger at the non-felon rapist traitor habitual liar and says they should have run a better campaign is fucked in the head and needs to get their priorities straight.
I think it’s more correct than sending the FUCKING MARINES TO SHOOT AT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. Something something Tiennemen Square…
When did I say I was fine with it? Also we are still doing that too. GTFO with your all bad choices are equally bad bullshit. That’s not how the world works.
The feddieverse is still a small place, so PSA @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml is really just here to troll some both sides stuff. If you try to have some dialog where you ask what their alternative is they will just never answer. They are just here to troll and grand stand about how much they care, but not enough to do something material for the cause.
When did I say “bad choices are equally bad”, you hypocrite?
But I’ll comfortable interpreting you complaining about using marines domestically rather than just on foreigners to mean you think one is worse than the other.
Gotta love the freaks over here complaining about a prosecutor with a doctorate in law while a felon rapist traitor descends fascism upon our nation and sends the military to assault Americans.
I wasn’t old enough to be politically involved when Al Gore ran, but I heard he had good policies. How many people can tell you what policies Kamala ran on?
She had a website, she promised to tax the rich on it. There were even some rightwing nutjobs producing cartoons about it claiming an unrealized gains tax would ruin the economy.
An unrealized gains tax would never make it out of committee, much less actually passing either house of Congress. She took absolutely zero risk w/ that one because everyone knows it’s not feasible.
When has that ever actually happened? Like anything else, there will be exceptions upon exceptions because the rich have the money and influence to successfully lobby Congress.
If you think the top 1% are going to pay even more in taxes without a massive concession, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Harris couldn’t pass that even if she actually, truly cared, and I fervently believe she’s just pandering to the left for votes. I don’t think she actually believes in most of the policies that made headlines, I think she just wanted to be Biden 2.0. She said as much in interviews, and it’s why she lost: she couldn’t convince her base that she’s actually different.
If you wanted actual, meaningful change from the left, Bernie Sanders was your best bet. I don’t even think he was that good of a candidate, but he actually seemed to believe in what he promised.
The tax laws that the GOP wrote in 2016/2017 expire this session and now they’re back in power to write the new ones.
Republicans have been the party cutting taxes for 50 years.
In 2023 they proposed tax raises across the board in order to have a chance of passing the senate with their 50 seat majority (with caucus) against the 49 Republicans, while they simultaneously expanded benefits like medicaid expansion so as to redistribute wealth to those who need it to survive.
GOP is the enemy. Remove the GOP, first and foremost.
EDIT: And also the Democrats removed money from politics from 2003 to 2010 until Conservative SCOTUS nominations struck it down with the “Citizens United Decision”, which every democrat has campaigned against since.
No, the enemy is the two-party system. The GOP is merely a symptom of that larger problem. The GOP proposing terrible bills doesn’t imply that Dem bills are “good,” they’re both generally quite terrible since most representatives don’t really need to worry about their seat since their district is likely uncontested, so they’re more beholden to special interests than their constituents.
Fix the electoral system and maybe I’ll entertain a discussion about the GOP being “evil.”
Will you please tell me more about trading your vote? Are there communities online where you can meet people willing to do that? How did you do it during the bush/gore election? Online? I live in MA, I’d trade a vote w a swing stater, assuming we have elections again.
The heritage foundations actual plan. Why we are funding the war in Israel. Isreal needs the one state solution so white evangelicals can have their rapture.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion and a salty comment.
That’s not criticism. That’s badmouthing.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
She was pro fracking.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
You assume that about anyone with any criticism whatsoever of harris.
I voted for harris; you just can’t abide anything other than unconditional worship of her.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
And you’re doubling down on the bad faith assumption that criticism of harris is support for trump.
As much as I hate having to use the word, this genuinely is whataboutism. You’re being provided with a legitimate criticism of one candidate and instead of actually addressing it you just point to a different candidate.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
She was pro fracking.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style?
Oh, she showed she was just a little bit more right than center, she wasn’t left enough, so I’ll vote for the far-right fascist instead.
Every time I read some comment like what the person above wrote, I get to remember that these voters are “just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…”
Criticizing a candidate doesn’t mean you voted for the other major candidate. It just means that the challenger to the other major candidate sucks. The DNC needs to run better candidates to actually convince people to show up and vote for them.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion in a salty comment.
A lot was implied in that comment. Implying that she is corrupt. That wasn’t criticism. That was badmouthing.
And that specific style of badmouthing usually insinuates justifying a non-vote, which in this case, meant a vote for the the other guy.
She wasn’t absolutely perfect, and she wasn’t the absolute exact perfect fit for everyone. And yes, her campaign could have been run better. Nobody’s perfect. No one can please everyone. But hey, at least she didn’t wear a tan suit!
Active support of genocide is not “not absolutely perfect”, unless you don’t believe foreigners are actually human, which does seem to be the case for American liberals.
She was and is a corrupt corporate shill who actively supports genocide and environmental destruction, and you’re still making excuses even after her worthless ass lost. You deserve Trump and worse. You belong in El Salvador.
You say she had a spec of dust, yet if you look at her primary election performance, you’ll find she’s just a bad candidate. She did so poorly that she withdrew early. If the DNC held a primary election in 2024, she probably wouldn’t have won. The only reason she had a semblance of a chance in 2024 was because Trump was so bad.
If your best argument in favor of a candidate is their opponent is worse, that tells me everything I need to know about why they lost. Yes, Trump was worse than Harris, but being less bad doesn’t motivate people to get to the polls.
It’s not a double standard, you’re just butthurt about having your preferred candidate being held to any standard at all. “Maybe she was” is bullshit, it’s extremely easy to verify that she was, you either don’t care enough to find out or you know perfectly well already and are deliberately lying. She was a shit candidate fielded specifically for her loyalty to corporate dems and their billionaire backers, the only people who are still pretending otherwise are incurable morons or paid propaganda posters. I don’t know or particularly care which you are, either way you’re a spineless sack of shit. You should be ashamed and silent, in that order.
Because it’s an either-or choice. We were always going to get either Harris or Trump. Criticism of one candidate must be viewed in the context of the only other alternative. So calling out Harris on fracking is only meaningful if her position was substantially different than Trump’s. And if their positions are really no different, but only one candidate got called out for it, then the criticism is irrelevant and that makes me question the motives of the accuser.
Other countries don’t have this problem, most picked other voting forms than “first past the post”, which over time destroyed our ability to have more than two actual serious political parties. So both those parties get overtaken by ethically dubious people, overtly for the entire republican party, and subtly with the establishment democrats, and it all collapses.
Have you seen the recent elections in Germany, Poland or France? Literally the entire western world is at risk of fascism. The problem isn’t “first past the post”, the problem is capitalism.
Only for immigrant first generation home buyers with no other members of your family owning a house and after you had lived in government backed apartment housing for more than 2 years.
Same way her business loan suggestions were only for specific communities with super strict requirements.
Set it up “help” so restrictive to only “the people who actually need it” so that you don’t have to give out any at all and just sounds good on paper. They don’t want to actually help people, Democrat leaders just needed to keep status quo.
provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners – or homebuyers whose parents don’t own a home.
Nothing at all about “immigrants”. Where did you hear that bullshit?
Mostly pro immigrant news sources that were happy about the benefit this would give directly to those communities and the fact that it targets people that have no other family members with a house in the US which those of us with older parents who were born in the US likely have.
The $10,000 credit for only first time homebuyers was a later addition and was not even set as it was more an additional thought tacked on and does nothing for actually giving money for the down payment but only credits you after you bought it.
Specifically, it targets individuals and families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are looking to buy their first home. The proposal offers up to $25,000 in down payment support, with more generous assistance available for first-generation homebuyers, meaning those whose parents do not currently own a home.
Proposed a $10,000 tax credit for first time home buyers.
Yeah, it was a shame it was so restrictive, literally was also set for a limit of 400,000 individuals when first proposed too.
Its a criticism of the garbage solutions that were brought forward for good headlines rather than actual support.
This plan will significantly simplify and expand the reach of down-payment assistance, allowing over 1 million first time-buyers per year – including first-generation home buyers – to get the funds they need to buy a house when they are ready to buy it," the Harris campaign said.
The Biden-Harris administration initially proposed providing $25,000 in downpayment assistance only for 400,000 first-generation home buyers—or homebuyers whose parents don’t own a home—and a $10,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers.
This is from Harris’s campaign announcement. The extension to millions would be the 4 year plan. And was adjusted again after Biden’s original proposal of this was panned for being what I originally sourced. The very last offering she made by the end of the campaign was looser on restrictions.
I was incorrect, in that she removed the tax credit and made wider eligibility though stated that those still meeting the original criteria would get more assistance, though all would be required to meet the 2 year of proven rental payments through an assured rental agency.
Wow, that’s very different from the “must live in government housing” and “only immigrants” that you started with. How many times does your bullshit need to be called out before you tell the truth?
I voted for Gore, but a bunch of my moron friends voted for Nader in that election. And Nader an ego was so big he could never admit fault for fucking up the next 2 decades of our country.
Now it looks like we fucked for the rest of this century.
Hillary Clinton too.
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
And Elizabeth Warren.
Naw, she got Bernie Sanders’d
So you think increasing military spending in exchange for having no healthcare, and supporting a genocide is correct?
I’m so glad that the one that did win ended the genocide, got us universal healthcare, and decreased military spending… oh wait…
Wow, it’s almost as if there wasn’t a proper candidate?
Harris was the correct option.
only option.
Clearly not, she lost
Do you have eyes and ears? Are you currently alive and breathing with minimal brain functionality?
Harris was CLEARLY the correct option.
You must be wearing horse blinders. Remember to keep to the track. Turn left. And left. And again. One more time. It’s the final stretch now…
Congrats, you placed fifth. Your odds are now 44-1.
Left? Like Dale Earnhardt and Hillary Clinton, she failed to turn left, then smashed into a fucking wall.
deleted by creator
Not my favorite candidate. By any means. Better than what we have with Trump? Absolutely undisputed. It’s not even a conversation. Wild that someone would even try to contend it.
Welcome to the reality of the broken US voting system bud
And instead of doing anything to fix it, I’m jerking off to what would have happened if another terrible candidate would have won.
I’m just in the spectator seats, we have preferential voting in Australia (not a perfect implementation, but probably one of the best in the world.)
Despite this, still under capitalism. So. Not rosy.
Just that, not voting tactically - while fighting like hell to get a third party candidate in, or get enough members of the less shit party to push through voting reform - is stupid.
It’s stupid.
A shit candidate that’s less shit, is still less shit.
This is the spoiler effect, and being high and mighty about not having voted is your copium. There may well have been enough people like you to have avoided a Trump presidency.
And if you think there’s no difference? Then you’re getting high on your own righteous supply.
Anyway, I’ll be over here enjoying my slightly left of centre government, and actually have a viable pathway to getting further left parties elected here. 🎩🦘
You’re insufferable because you think you’re better than everyone else who actually understands how the voting system works.
In most of the US, who you vote for literally doesn’t matter, because your state will go to the candidate from whatever party has won your state for the last couple decades. Unless you live in the 8 or so states that could actually, realistically flip in a given election cycle, there’s literally no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.
Going into any given election, I can say with high certainty that my state will go to the dominant party with a 15% split with very high confidence, and that all votes outside of the top two will be under 5%. The only way for this to not happen is for the minority party to run a very strong candidate, the majority party to run a very unpopular candidate, and for a large third party to steal a ton of votes from the majority party… And even then, you’ll probably trim the gap to 5% or so and the majority party candidate will still win by inertia.
If you understand that, you can be free to actually vote your conscience and pick one of the third party candidates. If third party candidates collectively get enough votes to actually spoil an election in your area, maybe you have a chance to get voting reform discussed on the media, and if the majority candidate doesn’t get 51% because of it, maybe it features in the debates.
So until the gap between the top two candidates narrows to where all third party voters collectively voting for the second candidate could actually flip the state, I’ll keep voting for a third party candidate.
To your point, at least for third party voters, only two states had enough third party participation to even theoretically move the end result: Michigan and Wisconsin. So even if every person that voted third party instead voted for Harris, she would have still lost 287:251 (though she would have won the symbolic victory of popular vote).
Of course, there’s more than just a single election in the country, so more important to keep active in down ballot races.
The biggest potential complaint of consequence would be non-voters/people who boycotted the election, but no way of knowing anything about it.
Still it is utterly obnoxious when someone seems to act all high and mighty that they didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.
I am aware of this, last I checked there were number electorates where non-voters (as compared with 2020) and third-party voters could have swayed the outcome. My assertion that not voting for the lesser of two evils where possible to do so is dumb in general. I am aware that certain places it is pointless to vote for the democrats.
Especially with the hodge-podge nature of it not really bring a federal election, and instead being a bunch of state/territory elections with different rules for each (gross).
I agree. Where I draw the line is in seats where it is possible to vote lesser of two evils.
Seems you understand tactical voting quite well! I have no issue with you.
I only have a problem with the drop-kicks that assert tactical voting is morally wrong, instead of necessary.
Godspeed on fixing your voting systems friend
I love how any criticism of your chosen deity makes you think I didn’t vote, or believe that there’s no difference between the two.
Incredible.
There was a correct candidate and an incorrect candidate. America chose incorrectly.
If she had run a competent campaign she would have won, I’d say that the DNC chose incorrectly but that’s not true either, they chose a candidate that aligned with the interests of their billionaire backers because they knew they’d get paid whether she won or not
Lol. The fact that you think Kamala didn’t run a competent campaign, while her opponent was a felon rapist who has confirmed lied more than any other president in U.S. history, sent a mob to our capitol to assault police, illegally attempted to overturn an election, and makes time every single day to divide Americans tells me all I need to know about your intellectual capacity.
Anyone that points a finger at the non-felon rapist traitor habitual liar and says they should have run a better campaign is fucked in the head and needs to get their priorities straight.
Whataboutism
Fuck off back to whatever Putin-compromised chanboard birthed you
Any criticism of liberals means I’m alt-right?
Is your name Israel, by chance?
I think it’s more correct than sending the FUCKING MARINES TO SHOOT AT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. Something something Tiennemen Square…
And you were fine with sending marines to shoot people in other countries, stop whining that it happens to you.
When did I say I was fine with it? Also we are still doing that too. GTFO with your all bad choices are equally bad bullshit. That’s not how the world works.
The feddieverse is still a small place, so PSA @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml is really just here to troll some both sides stuff. If you try to have some dialog where you ask what their alternative is they will just never answer. They are just here to troll and grand stand about how much they care, but not enough to do something material for the cause.
When did I say “bad choices are equally bad”, you hypocrite?
But I’ll comfortable interpreting you complaining about using marines domestically rather than just on foreigners to mean you think one is worse than the other.
Gotta love the freaks over here complaining about a prosecutor with a doctorate in law while a felon rapist traitor descends fascism upon our nation and sends the military to assault Americans.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Yes it’s truly macho to lose elections. Big muscle energy. This person is stoked to lose the next one. As long as they’re “correct”… jfc.
I wasn’t old enough to be politically involved when Al Gore ran, but I heard he had good policies. How many people can tell you what policies Kamala ran on?
She had a website, she promised to tax the rich on it. There were even some rightwing nutjobs producing cartoons about it claiming an unrealized gains tax would ruin the economy.
An unrealized gains tax would never make it out of committee, much less actually passing either house of Congress. She took absolutely zero risk w/ that one because everyone knows it’s not feasible.
If we vote for the Tax The Rich candidates then the Rich will get taxed.
Instead the anti-tax rich candidate won.
When has that ever actually happened? Like anything else, there will be exceptions upon exceptions because the rich have the money and influence to successfully lobby Congress.
And the rich already pay the most in taxes, and the richest get loopholes:
If you think the top 1% are going to pay even more in taxes without a massive concession, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Harris couldn’t pass that even if she actually, truly cared, and I fervently believe she’s just pandering to the left for votes. I don’t think she actually believes in most of the policies that made headlines, I think she just wanted to be Biden 2.0. She said as much in interviews, and it’s why she lost: she couldn’t convince her base that she’s actually different.
If you wanted actual, meaningful change from the left, Bernie Sanders was your best bet. I don’t even think he was that good of a candidate, but he actually seemed to believe in what he promised.
The tax laws that the GOP wrote in 2016/2017 expire this session and now they’re back in power to write the new ones.
Republicans have been the party cutting taxes for 50 years.
In 2023 they proposed tax raises across the board in order to have a chance of passing the senate with their 50 seat majority (with caucus) against the 49 Republicans, while they simultaneously expanded benefits like medicaid expansion so as to redistribute wealth to those who need it to survive.
GOP is the enemy. Remove the GOP, first and foremost.
EDIT: And also the Democrats removed money from politics from 2003 to 2010 until Conservative SCOTUS nominations struck it down with the “Citizens United Decision”, which every democrat has campaigned against since.
No, the enemy is the two-party system. The GOP is merely a symptom of that larger problem. The GOP proposing terrible bills doesn’t imply that Dem bills are “good,” they’re both generally quite terrible since most representatives don’t really need to worry about their seat since their district is likely uncontested, so they’re more beholden to special interests than their constituents.
Fix the electoral system and maybe I’ll entertain a discussion about the GOP being “evil.”
You think taxing the rich is bad?!
Gore’s election was the first I could vote in.
I voted for Kucinich in the primary and then traded my vote for Gore in a swing state for a vote for Nader in MA.
Then my “Al Gore won the votes” bumper sticker was torn off my car while I was at work at Cracker Barrel.
Will you please tell me more about trading your vote? Are there communities online where you can meet people willing to do that? How did you do it during the bush/gore election? Online? I live in MA, I’d trade a vote w a swing stater, assuming we have elections again.
It works like this: they say they will wote your choice if you vote theirs. Then both of you end up voting an orange ape.
Yep, it was done over the internet. The idea was to get Nader to 3% without electing Bush.
Neither happened because people are terrible and we can’t have nice things.
5%. You need 5% for the federal grant.
Thanks. As you can tell I am very old.
She was pro fracking. Got to line those pockets afterall.
And Trump? What’s his policy about the environment? Please, do enlighten us!
The Rapture. Trump’s plan is to utilize the environment to Rapture the entire species, all at once.
That explains the Zionism, at least.
Eh what the funk did I just read!!?!?
You just read highly classified top secret plans regarding mass emigration to the Kingdom of God.
You mean deportation?
In a manner of speaking.
Fine, fine, deportation to the Kingdom of God
The heritage foundations actual plan. Why we are funding the war in Israel. Isreal needs the one state solution so white evangelicals can have their rapture.
They’re in dire need of psychotherapy.
Aren’t we all?
As always, any criticism for harris is interpreted in bad faith as support for trump.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion and a salty comment.
That’s not criticism. That’s badmouthing.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
You assume that about anyone with any criticism whatsoever of harris.
I voted for harris; you just can’t abide anything other than unconditional worship of her.
And you’re doubling down on the bad faith assumption that criticism of harris is support for trump.
I wasn’t criticizing your comment. I never implied that you had voted for the other guy.
And I have no worship for her. She’s a politician. I only had hope, for the country and for the world, that the other guy wouldn’t take power.
A lot was implied in that comment the person wrote. Implying that she is corrupt.
That isn’t criticism. That is badmouthing.
And that is what I have a problem with. The double standard, and the gratuitous smearing. That’s what revolts me. That’s what upsets me.
And what I have a problem with is the bad faith assumption that criticism of democrats for corruption is support of trump.
Which is what centrists leap to when they have no defense for their politicians or positions, which is pretty much all the time.
Genocide is what revolts and upsets me.
As much as I hate having to use the word, this genuinely is whataboutism. You’re being provided with a legitimate criticism of one candidate and instead of actually addressing it you just point to a different candidate.
Yes, it is. And I don’t give a f.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style?
Oh, she showed she was just a little bit more right than center, she wasn’t left enough, so I’ll vote for the far-right fascist instead.
Every time I read some comment like what the person above wrote, I get to remember that these voters are “just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…”
Criticizing a candidate doesn’t mean you voted for the other major candidate. It just means that the challenger to the other major candidate sucks. The DNC needs to run better candidates to actually convince people to show up and vote for them.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion in a salty comment.
A lot was implied in that comment. Implying that she is corrupt. That wasn’t criticism. That was badmouthing.
And that specific style of badmouthing usually insinuates justifying a non-vote, which in this case, meant a vote for the the other guy.
She wasn’t absolutely perfect, and she wasn’t the absolute exact perfect fit for everyone. And yes, her campaign could have been run better. Nobody’s perfect. No one can please everyone. But hey, at least she didn’t wear a tan suit!
Active support of genocide is not “not absolutely perfect”, unless you don’t believe foreigners are actually human, which does seem to be the case for American liberals.
She was and is a corrupt corporate shill who actively supports genocide and environmental destruction, and you’re still making excuses even after her worthless ass lost. You deserve Trump and worse. You belong in El Salvador.
Yours is the same, but somehow less useful.
You say she had a spec of dust, yet if you look at her primary election performance, you’ll find she’s just a bad candidate. She did so poorly that she withdrew early. If the DNC held a primary election in 2024, she probably wouldn’t have won. The only reason she had a semblance of a chance in 2024 was because Trump was so bad.
If your best argument in favor of a candidate is their opponent is worse, that tells me everything I need to know about why they lost. Yes, Trump was worse than Harris, but being less bad doesn’t motivate people to get to the polls.
It’s not a double standard, you’re just butthurt about having your preferred candidate being held to any standard at all. “Maybe she was” is bullshit, it’s extremely easy to verify that she was, you either don’t care enough to find out or you know perfectly well already and are deliberately lying. She was a shit candidate fielded specifically for her loyalty to corporate dems and their billionaire backers, the only people who are still pretending otherwise are incurable morons or paid propaganda posters. I don’t know or particularly care which you are, either way you’re a spineless sack of shit. You should be ashamed and silent, in that order.
Because it’s an either-or choice. We were always going to get either Harris or Trump. Criticism of one candidate must be viewed in the context of the only other alternative. So calling out Harris on fracking is only meaningful if her position was substantially different than Trump’s. And if their positions are really no different, but only one candidate got called out for it, then the criticism is irrelevant and that makes me question the motives of the accuser.
That’s the awesome part about democracy: you get one of two shitty choices.
*American “democracy”.
Other countries don’t have this problem, most picked other voting forms than “first past the post”, which over time destroyed our ability to have more than two actual serious political parties. So both those parties get overtaken by ethically dubious people, overtly for the entire republican party, and subtly with the establishment democrats, and it all collapses.
Yes but we don’t live in other countries. We live in the stupid one.
Have you seen the recent elections in Germany, Poland or France? Literally the entire western world is at risk of fascism. The problem isn’t “first past the post”, the problem is capitalism.
Whataboutism
Shitpostingism
Average liberal
Let’s list out all the good and bad policies Harris and Trump ran on then see which is the lesser of 2 evils.
I don’t think Kamala could even tell you what policies Kamala ran on.
Straight up cash to help buy your first house. I wasn’t thrilled about it.
Only for immigrant first generation home buyers with no other members of your family owning a house and after you had lived in government backed apartment housing for more than 2 years.
Same way her business loan suggestions were only for specific communities with super strict requirements.
Set it up “help” so restrictive to only “the people who actually need it” so that you don’t have to give out any at all and just sounds good on paper. They don’t want to actually help people, Democrat leaders just needed to keep status quo.
Nothing at all about “immigrants”. Where did you hear that bullshit?
Mostly pro immigrant news sources that were happy about the benefit this would give directly to those communities and the fact that it targets people that have no other family members with a house in the US which those of us with older parents who were born in the US likely have.
The $10,000 credit for only first time homebuyers was a later addition and was not even set as it was more an additional thought tacked on and does nothing for actually giving money for the down payment but only credits you after you bought it.
Not helpful.
deleted by creator
Yeah, it was a shame it was so restrictive, literally was also set for a limit of 400,000 individuals when first proposed too.
Its a criticism of the garbage solutions that were brought forward for good headlines rather than actual support.
Source
You keep making shit up. One million > 400,000.
This is from Harris’s campaign announcement. The extension to millions would be the 4 year plan. And was adjusted again after Biden’s original proposal of this was panned for being what I originally sourced. The very last offering she made by the end of the campaign was looser on restrictions.
I was incorrect, in that she removed the tax credit and made wider eligibility though stated that those still meeting the original criteria would get more assistance, though all would be required to meet the 2 year of proven rental payments through an assured rental agency.
Wow, that’s very different from the “must live in government housing” and “only immigrants” that you started with. How many times does your bullshit need to be called out before you tell the truth?
I voted for Gore, but a bunch of my moron friends voted for Nader in that election. And Nader an ego was so big he could never admit fault for fucking up the next 2 decades of our country.
Now it looks like we fucked for the rest of this century.
Thankfully the Left learned from this mistake and added ranked voting
Oh wait that was New Zealand. But yea, everything since 9/11 is Nader’s fault