Say what you want but Kamala would not have stuck her micropenis in the Iranian hornets nest
Trump did. Gaza has still been obliterated. The rest of the middle east is on fire. The global economy is turbofucked for probably the rest of our lives.
Also netanyahu doesn’t have any tapes of Kamala from Jeffery.
So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).
Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.
The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.
Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.
One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.
The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.
Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.
I thought the subject was about how NOT to have somebody like Trump in power, which naturally means examining EVERYTHING that led to somebody like Trump ending in power, which certainly includes looking at how and why did the other party in the power duopoly system in the US field such a horrible candidate that she lost against somebody as bad as Trump.
Of course if your “subject” is not “how best to beat/avoid a Trump president” and instead is “the electorate should be subservient to the choices of ‘my Party’s leadership’”, I can see how it would seem to you that I changed subject by not going along with the whole “the choices of the DNC are above challenge by the riff-raff” view.
Party loyals never challenge the choices of those they see as their betters - the Party leadership - and instead blame the masses for not going along with them: it’s never “how can we better make sure people want to vote for us” and always “people are horrible for not voting for us”.
Say what you want but Kamala would not have stuck her micropenis in the Iranian hornets nest
Trump did. Gaza has still been obliterated. The rest of the middle east is on fire. The global economy is turbofucked for probably the rest of our lives.
Also netanyahu doesn’t have any tapes of Kamala from Jeffery.
¯\(ツ)/¯
So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).
Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.
The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.
Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.
I suppose I forgot that Bernie was the Democrat candidate in 2024?
One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.
The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.
Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.
n>ever seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala
So you’re not even capable of discussing an either/or comparison without changing the subject?
I thought the subject was about how NOT to have somebody like Trump in power, which naturally means examining EVERYTHING that led to somebody like Trump ending in power, which certainly includes looking at how and why did the other party in the power duopoly system in the US field such a horrible candidate that she lost against somebody as bad as Trump.
Of course if your “subject” is not “how best to beat/avoid a Trump president” and instead is “the electorate should be subservient to the choices of ‘my Party’s leadership’”, I can see how it would seem to you that I changed subject by not going along with the whole “the choices of the DNC are above challenge by the riff-raff” view.
Party loyals never challenge the choices of those they see as their betters - the Party leadership - and instead blame the masses for not going along with them: it’s never “how can we better make sure people want to vote for us” and always “people are horrible for not voting for us”.