I think Kamala will be an objectively great president
That means, not just in comparison to Trump, but actually good in general. The moment you say or endorse that statement, talking about Trump or whether there’s a viable alternative is 100% whataboutism.
I respect you less than OP because you’re now pretending like you care about Palestinians, and it’s just because there’s no alternative that you support Harris. I prefer it when y’all take the mask off, because it’s pointless to argue against something the other side is only pretending to believe or value.
You introduced the Israel-Hamas war into this topic. The other poster said “none of the candidates will change that”.
You assumed that he defended the quote that you posted.
At no point did the other poster state which candidate they vote for, only that they didn’t make their choice of American President based on the Israel-Hamas war.
When we ask the question, “Was Taft a good president?” we look at the things Taft did in office, we don’t look at who he ran against or whether there was another candidate who would’ve done things differently. If Taft supported a genocide, then it would be pretty hard to defend him as a good president, unless you just don’t care about the victims. Whether the person he ran against would’ve done the same is largely irrelevant to his legacy.
Now replace the word “Taft” with “Harris.” In evaluating whether Harris would be a “great” president, “objectively,” that doesn’t mean that she’s the best of awful choices, it means that she is actually good, irrespective of any other choices.
You are pretending that you recognize how bad it is to be pro-genocide, but that you’ll reluctantly look past it and support a pro-genocide candidate, because, wouldn’t you know it, your hands are tied, that’s just how elections work, wish we could have someone else but that’s just the way it is. That stance is bullshit. It’s just something you say to try to appeal to people who care about Palestine. The reality is what OP so plainly expressed, that you think Harris would be a great president and her support for genocide doesn’t really bother you.
You responded to the previous poster quoting something they never said and your answer doesn’t follow the conversation. JFC read your own comment chain before being an ass.
All you ever talk about is how genocidal Harris is, when I don’t think she is actually pro genocide, and I know Trump and other republicans really are. Your negatives about republicans are few and far between, but you talk at great lengths of the evils of the democrats, and then you get cross with people who point out that you’re echoing right wing talking points.
The genocide thing is standard Republican projection - Trump literally supports the genocide in Gaza, calls himself the best king of Israel ever, then calls Biden “genocide Joe”. Every accusation an admission.
Then you’re not paying attention. She has not distanced herself at all from Biden’s position of unconditionally arming Israel and reaffirms her support for Israel every time she talks about the issue.
The genocide thing is standard Republican projection
I’m not a Republican, so it’s not “Republican projection.” Republicans are also genocidal and you shouldn’t vote for them, obviously.
Trump
Again, we’re not talking about Trump here. We’re talking about whether Harris would be an “objectively great” president. I think her legacy will be greatly tarnished by her support for genocide. You can’t say that she’d be “great” while simultaneously trying to paint her as a “lesser evil.”
That means, not just in comparison to Trump, but actually good in general. The moment you say or endorse that statement, talking about Trump or whether there’s a viable alternative is 100% whataboutism.
I respect you less than OP because you’re now pretending like you care about Palestinians, and it’s just because there’s no alternative that you support Harris. I prefer it when y’all take the mask off, because it’s pointless to argue against something the other side is only pretending to believe or value.
Did you have a seizure or something?
No, why do you ask?
They asked because they have no rational response to your completely valid points.
Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.
The absolute liberal irony in this is fucking hilarious.
You people are just genuinely lost in hyperreality, aren’t you?
p.s. try sneering harder, you’re totally winning over the working class.
“If I act like a smug asshole, people will want to vote who I like!”
It doesn’t work for Musk, it won’t work for weirdos online who think bad polices are okay when it’s blue.
In what way is anything I said disconnected from reality? What are you confused about?
I think you replied to the wrong comment. The quote you’re including and answering does not exist here.
The quote is from the image, which the person who responded to me is defending.
… except that they didn’t?
You introduced the Israel-Hamas war into this topic. The other poster said “none of the candidates will change that”. You assumed that he defended the quote that you posted.
At no point did the other poster state which candidate they vote for, only that they didn’t make their choice of American President based on the Israel-Hamas war.
I responded to OP, and then they responded to me. I assumed that what they said was related to comment and not just a complete non sequitor.
We can play this game of pretenses but it still doesn’t work for you and I see little reason to.
The fact that you’re asking just leaves me more concerned for you.
When we ask the question, “Was Taft a good president?” we look at the things Taft did in office, we don’t look at who he ran against or whether there was another candidate who would’ve done things differently. If Taft supported a genocide, then it would be pretty hard to defend him as a good president, unless you just don’t care about the victims. Whether the person he ran against would’ve done the same is largely irrelevant to his legacy.
Now replace the word “Taft” with “Harris.” In evaluating whether Harris would be a “great” president, “objectively,” that doesn’t mean that she’s the best of awful choices, it means that she is actually good, irrespective of any other choices.
You are pretending that you recognize how bad it is to be pro-genocide, but that you’ll reluctantly look past it and support a pro-genocide candidate, because, wouldn’t you know it, your hands are tied, that’s just how elections work, wish we could have someone else but that’s just the way it is. That stance is bullshit. It’s just something you say to try to appeal to people who care about Palestine. The reality is what OP so plainly expressed, that you think Harris would be a great president and her support for genocide doesn’t really bother you.
What did I say that is in any way unclear?
You responded to the previous poster quoting something they never said and your answer doesn’t follow the conversation. JFC read your own comment chain before being an ass.
Read the OP, silly.
All you ever talk about is how genocidal Harris is, when I don’t think she is actually pro genocide, and I know Trump and other republicans really are. Your negatives about republicans are few and far between, but you talk at great lengths of the evils of the democrats, and then you get cross with people who point out that you’re echoing right wing talking points.
The genocide thing is standard Republican projection - Trump literally supports the genocide in Gaza, calls himself the best king of Israel ever, then calls Biden “genocide Joe”. Every accusation an admission.
You’re gross. I don’t care if they censor this. It’s true.
Then you’re not paying attention. She has not distanced herself at all from Biden’s position of unconditionally arming Israel and reaffirms her support for Israel every time she talks about the issue.
I’m not a Republican, so it’s not “Republican projection.” Republicans are also genocidal and you shouldn’t vote for them, obviously.
Again, we’re not talking about Trump here. We’re talking about whether Harris would be an “objectively great” president. I think her legacy will be greatly tarnished by her support for genocide. You can’t say that she’d be “great” while simultaneously trying to paint her as a “lesser evil.”