The people you talked to are bigoted cowards that wouldn’t have been swayed by any of that shit - She has a vagina and she’s black - That’s all it was ever going to be.
You’re hearing the thing they hope their neighbor would think of them after the fact, " I was this close, Bill… I just wanted more policy detail… More time… If only they didn’t make me vote for trump".
Your neighbor fucking sucks, Bill - this is the time you pause, take a breath, and fully internalize that to inform your future interactions.
Shit dude, I’m far left, believed that the only way to protect democracy was to vote for Harris, and then did it, but even I felt like she was appointed. Nobody wanted her as a first choice but we were forced to accept her when she succeeded Biden. She got 14 million less votes than Biden did in 2020. That isn’t only because she’s a black woman. It certainly plays a part, but we can’t act like it wasn’t just general voter malaise that led to this outcome.
It’s not “just” the fact that she has a vagina, its that that was always going to be the deciding factor. There’s nuance in understanding the distinction there.
So your argument is that she got 14 million less votes than Joe specifically because she’s a woman? Because I struggle to see how it could be the “deciding factor” otherwise.
Yes. That is their argument. Because most men of alll races, and even most white women favored him. He got less votes than 2020, and won the popular, got a trifecta.
I agree, it’s an oversimplification. The Democratic party has become the party of ‘going back to business as usual’ and refuses to lower it’s commitment to the corporations that fund it. Trump won 2016 because he was a genuine establishment shaker.
Leftists need a rouge candidate who refuses to bow. Someone who shows promise of CHANGE and not business as usual.
Leftists need a rouge candidate who refuses to bow. Someone who shows promise of CHANGE and not business as usual.
Democrats have proven that they will sue to strip such a person from the ballot. How can they claim to defend democracy while hiding behind First-past-the-post voting?
Because first past the post voting is a form of democracy, whether or not either of us have qualms with it. What is not democratic, in any way, shape, or form, is disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, which Trump has literally done, not to mention the intended destruction of the federal system under project 2025, which based on your response, I can tell you’ve done no research into.
Are the parties both bad? Sure. Is one objectively and provably better for the democratic institutions of the US? Abso-fucking-lutely.
The distinction between the candidates was clear enough:
I will lower your taxes (for billionaires), I don’t like immigrants, and I will say all the stuff you think and the lefties made it bad to say. Also if I don’t win I’m going to jail because, for enough money I will do whatever you want (for Russia, Elon, or anyone else).
I am an actual qualified candidate.
There was no choice. It was taxes and fear and tribalism with a special sprinkle of election interference attempts around the horn.
She was appointed? So what? Elect her because she’s a better choice, then fix that problem.
She was appointed? So what? Elect her because she’s a better choice, then fix that problem.
I think the issue (well one of many) with this line of thinking is that as she was appointed, even if elected she would not have been fairly elected. An issue with the Dems for many years now. People vote against things more then for them and the USA voted for trump over Harris. That nothing seems to have been learned other then “she should have won” or “maybe if we go farther right it will work this time” is a real mindfuck.
The Dems could “fix” that problem (since it is a party problem) but they don’t, ever. This is as much a failing of the Democratic party as the failure of American democracy collapsing into a two party system.
The people you talked to are bigoted cowards that wouldn’t have been swayed by any of that shit - She has a vagina and she’s black - That’s all it was ever going to be.
You’re hearing the thing they hope their neighbor would think of them after the fact, " I was this close, Bill… I just wanted more policy detail… More time… If only they didn’t make me vote for trump".
Your neighbor fucking sucks, Bill - this is the time you pause, take a breath, and fully internalize that to inform your future interactions.
Shit dude, I’m far left, believed that the only way to protect democracy was to vote for Harris, and then did it, but even I felt like she was appointed. Nobody wanted her as a first choice but we were forced to accept her when she succeeded Biden. She got 14 million less votes than Biden did in 2020. That isn’t only because she’s a black woman. It certainly plays a part, but we can’t act like it wasn’t just general voter malaise that led to this outcome.
It’s not “just” the fact that she has a vagina, its that that was always going to be the deciding factor. There’s nuance in understanding the distinction there.
So your argument is that she got 14 million less votes than Joe specifically because she’s a woman? Because I struggle to see how it could be the “deciding factor” otherwise.
Yes. That is their argument. Because most men of alll races, and even most white women favored him. He got less votes than 2020, and won the popular, got a trifecta.
I agree, it’s an oversimplification. The Democratic party has become the party of ‘going back to business as usual’ and refuses to lower it’s commitment to the corporations that fund it. Trump won 2016 because he was a genuine establishment shaker.
Leftists need a rouge candidate who refuses to bow. Someone who shows promise of CHANGE and not business as usual.
Democrats have proven that they will sue to strip such a person from the ballot. How can they claim to defend democracy while hiding behind First-past-the-post voting?
Because first past the post voting is a form of democracy, whether or not either of us have qualms with it. What is not democratic, in any way, shape, or form, is disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, which Trump has literally done, not to mention the intended destruction of the federal system under project 2025, which based on your response, I can tell you’ve done no research into.
Are the parties both bad? Sure. Is one objectively and provably better for the democratic institutions of the US? Abso-fucking-lutely.
A lot of people criticized Dems for exactly this when Harris was appointed after Biden dropped out.
None of it should factor. At all.
The distinction between the candidates was clear enough:
I will lower your taxes (for billionaires), I don’t like immigrants, and I will say all the stuff you think and the lefties made it bad to say. Also if I don’t win I’m going to jail because, for enough money I will do whatever you want (for Russia, Elon, or anyone else).
I am an actual qualified candidate.
There was no choice. It was taxes and fear and tribalism with a special sprinkle of election interference attempts around the horn.
She was appointed? So what? Elect her because she’s a better choice, then fix that problem.
I think the issue (well one of many) with this line of thinking is that as she was appointed, even if elected she would not have been fairly elected. An issue with the Dems for many years now. People vote against things more then for them and the USA voted for trump over Harris. That nothing seems to have been learned other then “she should have won” or “maybe if we go farther right it will work this time” is a real mindfuck.
The Dems could “fix” that problem (since it is a party problem) but they don’t, ever. This is as much a failing of the Democratic party as the failure of American democracy collapsing into a two party system.