• WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    The logic is that it’s simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, “yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!”

    It’s just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala’s brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, “yes, I’m fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!”?

    What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference. At some point you’re sitting there deciding between Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini might objectively be the better choice, as his crimes are fewer than Hitler’s by pure magnitude. But given that choice, a lot of people will just refuse to participate.

        People don’t vote based on pure logic. That’s not how human beings operate. Don’t make your voters feel like they need to go to confess their sins to a priest after voting for your candidate, and maybe then you won’t have people refusing to vote for them.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others

      That hasn’t been true since Clinton and the blue dogs. They became what Republicans used to be over the last 30 years. It has been said many times, but there simply isn’t a viable left wing/worker’s party in the US. Other countries have labor and social democrat parties for that.

      They used to be a hell of a lot more radical. The “new deal” was originally planned to go a hell of a lot further with social policies. We could have had taxpayer-funded healthcare in the 1940s.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy

      Sounds like a description of the GeNoCiDe jOe crowd who helped end democracy

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You have to understand Harris accepted millions in bribes from pro-Israeli lobbying groups.

      It was a hard choice between genocide and money, but Harris found a way to sell out America and keep both.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Libs trying to argue for participation in the system by pointing out how it’s a complete failure.

          Standard dem election strategy.

            • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If they didn’t want to lose because of protest votes they should have thrown a bone to the protesters before the election.

              The DNC chose this, everything else is just an attempt to deflect blame.

                • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I have a hard time blaming the voters for anything when they live in the most heavily propagandized country on the planet. Ultimately the voters opinions don’t matter when they can be shaped by billions of dollars in ads and media time.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The logic is that it’s simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, “yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!”

      This has been explained. I worry that going over it again will somehow not be helpful. Just let the leopards eat all our faces like you decided.