• hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    People like you seem to think protesting against genocide is a bigger problem than sending billions in support of genocide. I can’t tell if it’s a matter of diehard party support above all else or simple delusion.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Just acknowledge that we were always getting one of two options. This isn’t confusing in the slightest.

      To extend the analogy used in the comment starting this thread, it’s like leaving your abusive partner to live with a more abusive partner.

      Why the ever loving fuck would you choose the worse option?

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        The choices were genocide or genocide. Apparently some privileged people here haven’t noticed that the genocide has already been getting worse and worse for over a year now.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          Maybe electing someone unlikely to restrain them at all while simultaneously making shit worse in the US and Ukraine, doing a 180 on what little climate progress we’ve made, making abortion illegal nationwide, and reducing/ending social security will help.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            Biden wasn’t restraining israel at all and Harris kept talking about how she’d be a continuation of Biden. Now you’re bringing in a bunch of other issues that aren’t what these voters are focused on. Turns out you have to appeal to voters to get their votes.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              You seem to be under the impression that all discussions between the two countries happened in public. Do I have that right?

      • Iceman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        A perfect analogy where you argue to stay with abusive partner and you are actually a horrible person if you don’t want to stay with your abusive partner. The idea that your partner stops being abusive is also so absurd that it’s out of the question.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Yeah, yeah. People said this leading up to the election to. The plain logic of “we’re getting one of these two” didn’t seem to click with many, you included.

          I’m a cis white male who makes pretty damn good money so in all likelihood I’ll be fine. That surely won’t be the case for many. I tried. /shrug

          • Iceman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I bet you did wonders with your “stay with your abuser” rhetoric. With clever posters like you, how a could we possibly have lost? But i am happy to read that the election did matter to you anyway.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        As I said in the other comment you left, your interpretation of the analogy makes no sense. Your point would be valid if I were discussing Arab and Muslim voters who voted for Trump, but I’m not; I’m discussing the Uncommitted movement, who endorsed neither candidate.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          Oh they only didn’t know whether they wanted to better or worse option. Still pretty goddamn stupid.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yeah, also no, and it you’d actually read the original comment, you’d know that. As I said:

            they declined to endorse her, but still urged their supporters not to vote Trump or third-party.

            They knew Trump was worse, they didn’t want Trump to win, but they needed Harris to make a gesture towards the Arab community before they could endorse her; she didn’t, so they didn’t. She didn’t negotiate to get their endorsement, so she didn’t get their endorsement. It’s very funny that you’re acting like everyone else is an idiot yet you still don’t understand this.

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Dude, you need to reread the article, then reread my comment. The Uncommitted movement and Abandon Harris are two different groups.

                I criticized Abandon Harris in my comment for having unrealistic goals for how far they could push Democrats. Uncommitted had much more reasonable requests. Harris completely blew them off, so they couldn’t endorse her, but they still came out with an anti-Trump, anti-third-party statement. Harris could have one their endorsement with some small, most symbolic gestures, and she fucked it up. Losing that endorsement was entirely the Harris campaign’s fault.