• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I think Kamala will be an objectively great president

    That means, not just in comparison to Trump, but actually good in general. The moment you say or endorse that statement, talking about Trump or whether there’s a viable alternative is 100% whataboutism.

    I respect you less than OP because you’re now pretending like you care about Palestinians, and it’s just because there’s no alternative that you support Harris. I prefer it when y’all take the mask off, because it’s pointless to argue against something the other side is only pretending to believe or value.

    • @legion02
      link
      13 hours ago

      Did you have a seizure or something?

        • @legion02
          link
          23 hours ago

          Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            38 minutes ago

            The absolute liberal irony in this is fucking hilarious.

            You people are just genuinely lost in hyperreality, aren’t you?

            p.s. try sneering harder, you’re totally winning over the working class.

          • OBJECTION!
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            In what way is anything I said disconnected from reality? What are you confused about?

            • @legion02
              link
              22 hours ago

              The fact that you’re asking just leaves me more concerned for you.

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                When we ask the question, “Was Taft a good president?” we look at the things Taft did in office, we don’t look at who he ran against or whether there was another candidate who would’ve done things differently. If Taft supported a genocide, then it would be pretty hard to defend him as a good president, unless you just don’t care about the victims. Whether the person he ran against would’ve done the same is largely irrelevant to his legacy.

                Now replace the word “Taft” with “Harris.” In evaluating whether Harris would be a “great” president, “objectively,” that doesn’t mean that she’s the best of awful choices, it means that she is actually good, irrespective of any other choices.

                You are pretending that you recognize how bad it is to be pro-genocide, but that you’ll reluctantly look past it and support a pro-genocide candidate, because, wouldn’t you know it, your hands are tied, that’s just how elections work, wish we could have someone else but that’s just the way it is. That stance is bullshit. It’s just something you say to try to appeal to people who care about Palestine. The reality is what OP so plainly expressed, that you think Harris would be a great president and her support for genocide doesn’t really bother you.

                What did I say that is in any way unclear?