If we can’t be bothered to vote in the primaries, wjy would anyone believe us that a progressive candidate would somehow lure millions more to vote?
As I know the comments will be, uhhh, fun, I’ve turned off reply notifications.
If we can’t be bothered to vote in the primaries, wjy would anyone believe us that a progressive candidate would somehow lure millions more to vote?
As I know the comments will be, uhhh, fun, I’ve turned off reply notifications.
Too bad it’s seemingly impossible to get a Democratic candidate who anyone actually wants. But sure, keep telling people it’s their fault. Worked wonders in '24!
What, Kamala had the agency to change her stance on Israel, which the Democratic campaign knew was a dealbreaker? Sorry, it’s an ironclad law of the universe that’s not possible. Guess you have to continue going to the dentist who keeps making you gargle literal shit.
So because Kamela didn’t change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
Even a dentist that makes you gargle shit is better than the dentist that makes you gargle shit and shoots you in the head afterwards.
It’s simply amazing how Kamala Harris cared so much about killing brown people that it mattered more than winning the election.
I sure as hell haven’t played myself, considering I’m not an American!
But you’ve accidentally put it exactly right:
Yes, because Kamala didn’t change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.
One person had the chance to change it all, but it was more important to ensure that Gaza continues to be erased.
You could have convinced millions of people to vote, or to change their vote, and you’d still have to convince many more to change the result. Or you could convince one single person, and it would have changed the result. Which is more realistic?