AgentDalePoopster

AIPAC gave her more than 400k this year alone.

Lmao yeah Biden definitely would have won

I'm arguing against the idea that electing Kamala, then expecting to be able to move her left after the election, is a viable plan. If more people didn't tune out once January rolls around, then maybe it would be more feasible. But you and i are in agreement that a lot of people simply tune out once the election is over. Libs who protested kids in cages under Trump ignored kids in cages under Biden.

Voters have leverage now. If Kamala wants our votes, then believe me I would be thrilled to see her earn them.

I disagree with equating "I can't vote for a president who wants to continue to help commit a genocide" as "I expect a utopia and will settle for nothing less". I'm not going to vote for Jill Stein or whichever third party candidate, but I don't blame people who do. I blame party leadership for their failures. If they have a better vision for the future, it is their job to convince people that they are the best for the job. Right now, Dems are choosing to gamble their own votes so they can keep helping fascists commit a genocide and what increasingly appears to be a war of expansion and conquest in Lebanon.

get mad in time for the primary

Hell yeah. I have voted in every primary I could since I hit age 18.

I cant be mad that the cou try founded on genocide and slavery is still invested in hate.

You can, and you should be. Being mad isn't the same as being surprised.

I'm mad that come February I will hear only crickets and the giant shit sandwich we all consume every 4 years will be forgotten.

Totally agree on this point, and I don't know why you assume that I'm one of the many who choose to spend four years at brunch before starting to care about politics again.

No but seriously, does it not make you angry that the Dems are willing to gamble votes if it means they can keep helping Israel murder children? Genocide is that important to them? These are the people who are supposed to be better than that. If that doesn't make you angry then I don't think I'm the one acting in bad faith. Criticize my smiley face all you want, I'm not the one gambling with the future of the country and we both have every right to be angry about that :-).

When did I say I was happy? I don't want Trump to win any more than you do. Which is why I'm so upset that the party with the best chance to stop him is choosing to risk losing the election (and jeapordizing the rights of millions of Americans who will be harmed under a Trump administration) by continuing to support genocide. Doesn't this make you angry?

Oh don't get it twisted, none of these are "my tactics" and I understand that the current Dem leadership won't budge on their support for genocide. They've made it clear that their tactic is "try to win a presidential election while going against their own base". We'll see how effective that tactic is in around two weeks :-).

I thought this was learned in 2016 but I see a lot this repeating itself.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people who helped run Hillary's campaign are also helping to run Kamala's. They don't learn lol.

Of course they are. Harris might lose because of her positions on Gaza. And in spite of this, most Democrats, including Harris, refuse to budge on their "ironclad" support of Israel. Just like the Biden administration has refused to budge in the face of countless protests against their support for Israel over the past year.

I'm arguing against the whole "elect them and then pressure them into moving left" rhetoric because that has proven to be a completely ineffective tactic.

There have been countless protests in the US against the genocide of Palestinians over the last year, since Israel really kicked the genocide into high gear. What have the democrats (the party that everyone insists can be pressured by their base) done in response to this?

You probably should care, though. The DNC should absolutely care. Stein is not wrong that the Greens might stop Kamala from winning Michigan.