If that were true you wouldn't call them 'pet groups,' you wouldn't sneer at the idea of your political representatives supporting them being non-negotiable
If that were true you wouldn't call them 'pet groups,' you wouldn't sneer at the idea of your political representatives supporting them being non-negotiable
Bullshit. If you actually cared about your pet project, you wouldn't allow Trump to regain power. Being righteous about Kamala was more important to you than stopping Trump. Fuck off into the emptyness from whence you came.
You think human rights are a pet project?
I'm saying they're a pet project *to you*, as you'll allow someone worse on them because the other candidate wasn't perfect on them.
You don't actually care about your pet project other than as a cudgel against Democrats.
If you did, you'd have voted against Trump. But you didn't, so clearly human rights aren't really that important to you.
Notice *I* never specified any group regarding pet projects. Because it's just a placeholder. Palestinian rights, trans rights, defunding police, universal healthcare et al: whatever the issue that Kamala didn't meet you at, Trump is worse in every measurable way.
You act like it is not the entire job of politicians to meet the demands of their potential voters She was warned, you were warned
What's the current state of your pet project? Gotten any better, has it? Feeling good and righteous about your non-decision? How's the genocide going, slowed down yet? How about human rights in the US, is your smug self-satisfaction a worthwhile replacement?
Well it's in a pretty poor state after you and your idols fucked everything up
If I did she would've still lost the election and I knew this at the time so, no? In any case helping do a genocide isn't imperfect, its pretty far into straight up bad and it is ludicrous that in a 'democracy' it's impossible to get a viable candidate that consistently supports human rights