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.
the logos ethos pathos thing adds absolutely nothing to your point. it's just there to sound smart.
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. 🤷♀️
gosh, i thought i was lying about voting for her, remember? you were so smug about calling it.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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!
your frame of reference for what's unrealistic comes from the mainstream media and politicians that want the genocide to continue!
You didn't understand what I said in multiple threads (e.g. here my point was to give qualified agreement about an area where I think we Democratic voters can do better next time). I disagree with most of your premises as well as how you've characterized mine and others' positions. 🤷♀️ Muting.
well you only downplayed the role of the gaza genocide god knows how many times, sue me for assuming. why would i immediately transition to calm discussion from argument, with someone that repeatedly called me a liar? considering the circumstances, your attempt has to be a bit more clear!