1801
In the end, The Hill lied and Harris was right.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
1801 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
8341 readers
917 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wasn't old enough to be politically involved when Al Gore ran, but I heard he had good policies. How many people can tell you what policies Kamala ran on?
Gore’s election was the first I could vote in.
I voted for Kucinich in the primary and then traded my vote for Gore in a swing state for a vote for Nader in MA.
Then my “Al Gore won the votes” bumper sticker was torn off my car while I was at work at Cracker Barrel.
Will you please tell me more about trading your vote? Are there communities online where you can meet people willing to do that? How did you do it during the bush/gore election? Online? I live in MA, I'd trade a vote w a swing stater, assuming we have elections again.
It works like this: they say they will wote your choice if you vote theirs. Then both of you end up voting an orange ape.
Yep, it was done over the internet. The idea was to get Nader to 3% without electing Bush.
Neither happened because people are terrible and we can’t have nice things.
5%. You need 5% for the federal grant.
She was pro fracking. Got to line those pockets afterall.
And Trump? What’s his policy about the environment? Please, do enlighten us!
The Rapture. Trump's plan is to utilize the environment to Rapture the entire species, all at once.
That explains the Zionism, at least.
As always, any criticism for harris is interpreted in bad faith as support for trump.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion and a salty comment.
That’s not criticism. That’s badmouthing.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
You assume that about anyone with any criticism whatsoever of harris.
I voted for harris; you just can't abide anything other than unconditional worship of her.
And you're doubling down on the bad faith assumption that criticism of harris is support for trump.
I wasn’t criticizing your comment. I never implied that you had voted for the other guy.
And I have no worship for her. She’s a politician. I only had hope, for the country and for the world, that the other guy wouldn’t take power.
A lot was implied in that comment the person wrote. Implying that she is corrupt.
That isn’t criticism. That is badmouthing.
And that is what I have a problem with. The double standard, and the gratuitous smearing. That’s what revolts me. That’s what upsets me.
And what I have a problem with is the bad faith assumption that criticism of democrats for corruption is support of trump.
Which is what centrists leap to when they have no defense for their politicians or positions, which is pretty much all the time.
Genocide is what revolts and upsets me.
Yes, it is. And I don’t give a f.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style?
Oh, she showed she was just a little bit more right than center, she wasn’t left enough, so I’ll vote for the far-right fascist instead.
Every time I read some comment like what the person above wrote, I get to remember that these voters are "just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…"
Criticizing a candidate doesn't mean you voted for the other major candidate. It just means that the challenger to the other major candidate sucks. The DNC needs to run better candidates to actually convince people to show up and vote for them.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion in a salty comment.
A lot was implied in that comment. Implying that she is corrupt. That wasn’t criticism. That was badmouthing.
And that specific style of badmouthing usually insinuates justifying a non-vote, which in this case, meant a vote for the the other guy.
She wasn’t absolutely perfect, and she wasn’t the absolute exact perfect fit for everyone. And yes, her campaign could have been run better. Nobody’s perfect. No one can please everyone. But hey, at least she didn’t wear a tan suit!
Active support of genocide is not "not absolutely perfect", unless you don't believe foreigners are actually human, which does seem to be the case for American liberals.
I’m Canadian.
And I personally wouldn’t give a fuck about American politics—hadn’t it been for the actual regime amusingly destroy the entire planet, using Palestine as target practice and a real estate opportunity.
Oh, and threatening to invade my country.
Yours is the same, but somehow less useful.
You say she had a spec of dust, yet if you look at her primary election performance, you'll find she's just a bad candidate. She did so poorly that she withdrew early. If the DNC held a primary election in 2024, she probably wouldn't have won. The only reason she had a semblance of a chance in 2024 was because Trump was so bad.
If your best argument in favor of a candidate is their opponent is worse, that tells me everything I need to know about why they lost. Yes, Trump was worse than Harris, but being less bad doesn't motivate people to get to the polls.
That’s the awesome part about democracy: you get one of two shitty choices.
*American "democracy".
Other countries don't have this problem, most picked other voting forms than "first past the post", which over time destroyed our ability to have more than two actual serious political parties. So both those parties get overtaken by ethically dubious people, overtly for the entire republican party, and subtly with the establishment democrats, and it all collapses.
Yes but we don’t live in other countries. We live in the stupid one.
Have you seen the recent elections in Germany, Poland or France? Literally the entire western world is at risk of fascism. The problem isn't "first past the post", the problem is capitalism.
Whataboutism
Let's list out all the good and bad policies Harris and Trump ran on then see which is the lesser of 2 evils.
And then throw them all away and burn it down with the greater evil just for funsies, apparently.
Yeah, but eggs are cheap again, so…
Oh wait.
I don't think Kamala could even tell you what policies Kamala ran on.
Straight up cash to help buy your first house. I wasn't thrilled about it.
I voted for Gore, but a bunch of my moron friends voted for Nader in that election. And Nader an ego was so big he could never admit fault for fucking up the next 2 decades of our country.
Now it looks like we fucked for the rest of this century.