"i didn't criticize her before the election, and i barely saw anyone else do that either." If you hadn't included the second clause, I might not know you're lying.
Replies
well, it's true. maybe you assume anyone more left than you is endlessly self-righteous, but i was there. people recognized that criticizing her would contribute to trump winning, even if they knew she would deserve it. in the rare cases i saw, others would shut them down.
aug 2, 2025, 6:05 pm • 0 0 • view
we ignored the elephant in the room, gritting our teeth all the while, and she lost anyway, wasting the effort.
aug 2, 2025, 6:06 pm • 0 0 • view
Y'all didn't ignore it. Some on the left were as clear about it as you are now. Thinking about persuasion in politics as logos, ethos, and pathos... if you spread the other side's attacks based on ethos and pathos then you're working for the other candidate whatever else you say.
aug 2, 2025, 6:20 pm • 0 0 • view
the logos ethos pathos thing adds absolutely nothing to your point. it's just there to sound smart.
aug 2, 2025, 6:23 pm • 0 0 • view
Nah, my point is that you're saying she was morally bad (pathos) and untrustworthy (ethos) -- but you were smart enough to vote for her anyway (logos). Others hear all three parts, and often vote based on different criteria. There's plenty to criticize in any politician, but consider the context. 🤷♀️
aug 2, 2025, 6:27 pm • 1 0 • view
gosh, i thought i was lying about voting for her, remember? you were so smug about calling it.
aug 2, 2025, 6:33 pm • 0 0 • view
"you're saying...you voted..." -- in this skeet I made an observation about the things you said. It is true that the other skeet was an overstatement intended to make it more pithy. I don't know how you voted; but if you talked about Harris then as you are doing now, I know who you helped elect.
aug 2, 2025, 6:39 pm • 0 0 • view
ok good. so you're still one of the morons that thinks it's impossible to vote for someone you hated. in a country that's had three consecutive "lesser of two evils" elections
aug 2, 2025, 6:41 pm • 0 0 • view
it's the candidate's job to account for the fact that not everyone is a mercilessly logical robot. it's their job to win. if it didn't look like they would because they could only win over robots, they're at fault for keeping with that strategy.
aug 2, 2025, 6:33 pm • 0 0 • view
I have thought a lot about this, actually -- largely in the context of how Democratic Party voters (both primary and general) ask for things of their candidates which may not be what's needed to win elections with the general electorate.
aug 2, 2025, 6:43 pm • 0 0 • view
she DIDN'T win with the general electorate, numbnuts! polls and the fucking election itself showed it's a losing issue! not fueling genocide isn't a naive ask! they're naive for thinking they could win without even giving up something that unambiguously bad!
aug 2, 2025, 6:46 pm • 0 0 • view
your frame of reference for what's unrealistic comes from the mainstream media and politicians that want the genocide to continue!
aug 2, 2025, 6:48 pm • 0 0 • view