▲ 243 ▼ [Video] Kamala Harris becomes visibly shaken and furious after being called a “right-wing war criminal” (i.imgur.com) submitted 1 year ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world 402 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 year ago (15 children) How much power do you think VPOTUS has over Israeli policy? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] ceenote@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (2 children) She had complete control over her own campaign platform, where she chose to be in lockstep with Biden. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago This. It's up to the politician to build a platform that gets as many votes as possible. The DNC and Harris choose to ignore their base, shout down the Muslim vote, and took more money from special interests groups than Republicans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Which doesn’t suggest she has any power. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children) Enough to have a backbone? To stand on morality? No one made her back genicide. Like the fuck we talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Nothing you said answers the question. What specific actions do you think Harris can take as VP to stop what POTUS is intending to do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (9 children) It doesn't matter. Even more so the less power she had to change the situation. All she had to do while vp was say was I don't support, agreed with, nor play a part in the genicide happening in Palestine. She could have said during the campaign that she would stop all weapons going to Isreal and that she'd hand over anyone that helped kill innocent people. She has nothing to lose. Her silence proved she wasn't ready to be president. If she can't stand up to special interest groups with no real skin in the game, do you think she'll magically gain morality once in power? And additionally, what a dumb political move that is ultimately! Not a single vote was gained by backing Isreal, because Republicans were going to back them anyways. Pro genicide people aren't going to vote Democrat, full stop. She was more afraid of losing money rather than the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (9 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) Right in the middle permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (2 children) She had complete control over her own campaign platform, where she chose to be in lockstep with Biden. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago This. It's up to the politician to build a platform that gets as many votes as possible. The DNC and Harris choose to ignore their base, shout down the Muslim vote, and took more money from special interests groups than Republicans. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Which doesn’t suggest she has any power. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago This. It's up to the politician to build a platform that gets as many votes as possible. The DNC and Harris choose to ignore their base, shout down the Muslim vote, and took more money from special interests groups than Republicans. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Which doesn’t suggest she has any power. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children) Enough to have a backbone? To stand on morality? No one made her back genicide. Like the fuck we talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Nothing you said answers the question. What specific actions do you think Harris can take as VP to stop what POTUS is intending to do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (9 children) It doesn't matter. Even more so the less power she had to change the situation. All she had to do while vp was say was I don't support, agreed with, nor play a part in the genicide happening in Palestine. She could have said during the campaign that she would stop all weapons going to Isreal and that she'd hand over anyone that helped kill innocent people. She has nothing to lose. Her silence proved she wasn't ready to be president. If she can't stand up to special interest groups with no real skin in the game, do you think she'll magically gain morality once in power? And additionally, what a dumb political move that is ultimately! Not a single vote was gained by backing Isreal, because Republicans were going to back them anyways. Pro genicide people aren't going to vote Democrat, full stop. She was more afraid of losing money rather than the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (9 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) Right in the middle permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Nothing you said answers the question. What specific actions do you think Harris can take as VP to stop what POTUS is intending to do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (9 children) It doesn't matter. Even more so the less power she had to change the situation. All she had to do while vp was say was I don't support, agreed with, nor play a part in the genicide happening in Palestine. She could have said during the campaign that she would stop all weapons going to Isreal and that she'd hand over anyone that helped kill innocent people. She has nothing to lose. Her silence proved she wasn't ready to be president. If she can't stand up to special interest groups with no real skin in the game, do you think she'll magically gain morality once in power? And additionally, what a dumb political move that is ultimately! Not a single vote was gained by backing Isreal, because Republicans were going to back them anyways. Pro genicide people aren't going to vote Democrat, full stop. She was more afraid of losing money rather than the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (9 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) Right in the middle permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (9 children) It doesn't matter. Even more so the less power she had to change the situation. All she had to do while vp was say was I don't support, agreed with, nor play a part in the genicide happening in Palestine. She could have said during the campaign that she would stop all weapons going to Isreal and that she'd hand over anyone that helped kill innocent people. She has nothing to lose. Her silence proved she wasn't ready to be president. If she can't stand up to special interest groups with no real skin in the game, do you think she'll magically gain morality once in power? And additionally, what a dumb political move that is ultimately! Not a single vote was gained by backing Isreal, because Republicans were going to back them anyways. Pro genicide people aren't going to vote Democrat, full stop. She was more afraid of losing money rather than the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (9 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) Right in the middle permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (9 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) Right in the middle permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (8 children) Right in the middle permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (7 children) OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Among Americans in general. Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children) And I'm sorry but this just hit me. she would have lost outright. She would have lost outright... She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright. Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Outright So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human. permalink fedilink source parent