NoneOfUrBusiness

Your argument, if it can even be called that, isn't proving anything at all. Pelosi isn't doing these particular things, but she has her own list of crimes.

And 2015, and 2005, and 1995, etc etc.

Better? What the heck is "better"? Is putting Republicans in a Democratic president's cabinet "better"? Is completing the border wall "better"? Is supporting genocide and cracking down on protests "better"? Is the "most lethal army in the world" better? Biden failed all the most important tests put before him, and Harris was campaigning on being worse than Biden. There's at least a conversation to be had if we're talking lesser evil, but better? No fucking way.

Here's the thing: To work towards such a party you need to have both a carrot and a stick; surrendering unconditionally and hoping they'll generously grant you the opportunity to represent your leftwing ideals was always folly. In 2024 the DNC basically gave a massive middle finger to progressives, multiple in fact, which was going to lead to disaster if someone somewhere didn't whack them over the head and force them to change course. Uncommitted was supposed to be that, but they were met with scorn by people who kept screaming "vote blue no matter who." Well here's the thing: "vote blue no matter who" destroys Democrat turnout, because to your average voter voting for a party that stands for nothing is a very hard sell. It was change the Democrats while there was still time or bust, and America chose bust. There was no winning with a Democratic party that, to reiterate, stood and still stands for nothing.

The all or nothing mindset is why we have a fascist in office currently.

Non-voters were predominantly moderates, not leftists, so no. The people you're trying to criticize here for the most part voted for Harris.

Non-proliferation treaty.

The thing is: There are people who are well-equipped to stop fascism; the Democrats just hate their guts. Forcing the Democrats to accept those people and their ideas was the only way forward, which is what people like Uncommitted tried to do and were met with scorn for. Now we're at the only logical conclusion of "vote blue no matter who".

They claimed Iran was violating the NPT, which can only mean one thing.

A lot of people can also die when fascism takes over because you didn't try to figure shit out, and that's the problem with vote blue no matter who: Democrats are woefully underequipped to stop fascism, so allowing them to coopt all left-leaning voices was always going to end in disaster. Coercing the Democrats into becoming less horrible was the only way to get out of this with American democracy intact, but that requires taking a more antagonistic stance than "vote blue no matter who".

Okay if you think Pelosi isn't part of the problem I have a bridge to sell you.

That's probably less legible than you intended it to be.

Here's another one any action in the middl east always prompts a response from multiple other sources regardless of the territory or regime targeted.

Okay? That's called solidarity and it's a good thing last I checked.

Iran itself has spent decades building networks of foreign fighters who would be classed as terrorists.

Based on what criteria?

It's own soldiers have been caught sponsoring and training these people with the intent to attack and destabilise countries in the west.

Example?

I do not agree with the aggression from Israel or the US but do not ever paint Iran as a saint of a country.

They're not, but that has nothing to do with your initial claim.

The other person already pointed this out, but resistance against foreign occupation isn't terrorism no matter how much Western governments want it to be.