You're viewing a single thread.
She also clarified her stance on Israel i.e. exactly the same as Biden, full support for genocide.
Yeah idk why you're getting downvoted, that was one of the most disappointing parts of it.
She could have tried to wriggle around it a bit more rhetorically but she just went "I'll bang my head against the wall with Israel just like we've been doing till now."
In general it was a pretty bad showing from Harris, and Walz did only a bit better.
The downvotes are because that topic matters a lot, but it's also used to try to force people to become single issue voters, so they'll vote against her, all the while knowing that Trump loves genocide too, but let's not mention that.
So if you wanna attack Harris on that issue, please do. You should. But remember to include Trump's stance as well, if you're trying to talk about an upcoming election.
Or hey, do whatever you like, right? It's just that simplistic comments often get simplistic responses (i.e., downvotes).
I feel like having to preface evert criticism of dems with "Trump is worse but..." seems pretty silly.
I generally consider Republican candidates and ideas non-starters. Not even worthy of consideration. When I criticize Democrats, the "Trump is not an option" is implied.
But then your comments are identical to those posted by people whose goal is to undermine democratic support through single issues in order to create voter apathy and let Trump win.
It's not the message people are downvoting it's the effect. If you don't do anything to separate your message from this type of malicious attack, it'll unfortunately be taken as that.
You're making bold assumptions about people based simply on the fact that they are criticizing the people currently in power for what they're currently doing. That's your fault not theirs stop doing that
I'm not assuming anything.
The right is attacking the left to try to reduce voter turnout. They do this by criticizing Democrats for "not being left enough" even though they are the most viable leftish option and the Republicans are worse at that exact thing. They're doing this all over the world right now but just in the US. We HAVE to stop this attack.
When you criticize the left for not being left enough without adding nuance or adding that the right is much worse on that topic, you're either purposefully or accidentally participating in the attack whether you like it or not.
No criticism, just facts.
A criticism of the Democratic party is not automatically part of a right wing tactic, you're making that assumption. That's in your mind only and not in reality.
Chastising people for ever giving criticism to the party you support makes you insufferable and makes your party seem like a cult where no questioning is ever allowed.
Holy fuck. I didn't say criticism of the democratic party is automatically a right wing tactic. Get some goddamned reading comprehension. I swear you're just trolling me at this point.
In case you're not, I'll give it one more shot. I said there is a specific right wing effort to get left wing people to not vote by calling out issues where the Democrats aren't left enough (but where the Republicans are much worse) in order to convince people not to vote. If your posts look like that, for example if you post a typical "genocide Joe" post, you need to be downvoted, because there is no way allowing another Trump victory is the right answer to "the Democrats aren't left enough". This in no way stops anyone from posting nuanced criticism or even just "I wish the Democratic leadership had more courage to fight Israel we should support Bernie Sanders' campaign to withhold funding and petition our representatives to support the motion". Anything with ANY nuance, or genuine desire for improvement of the democratic party will be VERY different from this tactic. If you don't want to be downvoted all you have to do is include the slightest bit of additional thought, information, input, nuance or advice. If you don't, not only does your post look exactly like a right wing voter suppression post, and should be downvoted on that basis alone, but also clearly has no real new thoughts to offer and would be downvoted on that basis anyways.
Why? In this race he is literally the alternative
Because everyone who is interested enough in politics to discuss it online is either voting for him or aware of that fact already.
So? If one of the 2 outcomes will inevitably come true, we really cannot talk about one without at least weighting the other
i mean, it was a pretty bad show in terms of the one question she was asked. I'm not really sure why that's surprising to people.
It wasn't just that one question though, the interview overall was bad. The immigration bit too for example.
it was pretty par for the course for a political interview, a lot of the questions were just, not very good. The IVF question was weird?