• thlibos@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Maybe if democrats credibly supported something other than genocide, more people would have voted against him.

    Or, maybe if she had been unequivocally anti-genocide or even anti-funding Israel without checks or guarantees from Israel first, she would have lost even worse. Sad to think about, but close to 1/3 of the US is irredeemable deplorables who have been shamelessly propagandized for over 40 years by hate media. Your own argument seems to distill down to everyone is a genocider. Can you really say that she wouldn’t have lost more votes than she gained, and that the purity testers wouldn’t have just moved on to a different issue they had with her and still sat out on election day?

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Sad to think about, but close to 1/3 of the US is irredeemable deplorables who have been shamelessly propagandized for over 40 years by hate media.

      They aren’t ever going to vote for a democrat. They are not your audience, they are not your voters, and no matter how much you support genocide, unless you support it harder than trump, none of them will vote for you. Not fucking one.

      Your own argument seems to distill down to everyone is a genocider.

      Well, considering how many of you are still carrying water for a genocidal candidate more than a year after the election, I’m disappointed to say that too many members of the democratic party support genocide and nothing else.

      Can you really say that she wouldn’t have lost more votes than she gained

      I think that’s the very reason that the party won’t release its postmortem on the election.

      purity testers

      All this has ever meant is “I have no standards and I expect you to abandon yours.”