1776
In the end, The Hill lied and Harris was right. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
locked 344 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Link https://archive.ph/lk6HY

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    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.

    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…"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I’m Canadian.

    And I personally wouldn’t give a fuck about American politics—hadn’t it been for the actual regime amusingly destroy the entire planet, using Palestine as target practice and a real estate opportunity.

    Oh, and threatening to invade my country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent