4 ms·

I agree with this. What was certain and predictable was that Harris was a war candidate (the Democrats presided over the first year of genocide and were intendi

I agree with this. What was certain and predictable was that Harris was a war candidate (the Democrats presided over the first year of genocide and were intending to continue). MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state.

krapp 4mo ago
>MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state. This implies that Donald Trump/Republicans weren't pro-Zionist and didn't support Israel which is obviously untrue. The truth is there was no "non-genocide" candidate between the two parties and pretending otherwise - particularly by voting for Trump - was simply self-delusion.
- throw37842 4mo ago
  Both sides are against the genocide of Israel, thank God - and against the genocide of Arabs. (Unlike the meme-puppets who now believe that some genocides are better than other genocides).
inigyou 4mo ago
Both Harris and Trump were identical in that respect, so it shouldn't have swayed your decision.
- kelipso 4mo ago
  Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Greater variance, same mean
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    Trump had already tried to overthrow the previous election. He could only have been thought less bad if you weren't paying attention.
    - kelipso 4mo ago
      If you define paying attention as funneling MSNBC straight into your brain 24/7, then sure.
unparagoned 4mo ago
To give you the benefit of the doubt at best it would be like 5/10 vs 6/10. There wasn’t ever any difference that Soto’s have ever recruited into any decision. The only reason someone would have thought Harris was a war candidate would have been because rogan or similar said it.

krapp 4mo ago

>MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state. This implies that Donald Trump/Republicans weren't pro-Zionist and didn't support Israel which is obviously untrue. The truth is there was no "non-genocide" candidate between the two parties and pretending otherwise - particularly by voting for Trump - was simply self-delusion.

throw37842 4mo ago
Both sides are against the genocide of Israel, thank God - and against the genocide of Arabs. (Unlike the meme-puppets who now believe that some genocides are better than other genocides).

inigyou 4mo ago

Both Harris and Trump were identical in that respect, so it shouldn't have swayed your decision.

kelipso 4mo ago
Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Greater variance, same mean
- amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
  Trump had already tried to overthrow the previous election. He could only have been thought less bad if you weren't paying attention.
  - kelipso 4mo ago
    If you define paying attention as funneling MSNBC straight into your brain 24/7, then sure.

unparagoned 4mo ago

To give you the benefit of the doubt at best it would be like 5/10 vs 6/10. There wasn’t ever any difference that Soto’s have ever recruited into any decision. The only reason someone would have thought Harris was a war candidate would have been because rogan or similar said it.