this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
332 points (100.0% liked)
People Mastodon
370 readers
49 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah Kamala is a fucking shady asshole, thats why people didnt vote for her.
Well, I for one am glad that we avoided having shady people in the Oval Office...
Holy whataboutism. Nothing absolves here of the shitty things she has done. The lesser evil ideology is why Trump is the current US president.
If the goal was to keep Kamala out of the office, the goal was achieved. If the goal was to keep the shadiest asshole out, it failed in a manner that would be laughable if it wasn't so horrible. If the goal was to not vote for shady people, well, how did that solve the problem of shady people in power? That isn't whataboutism, it is merely pointing out facts.
There was one way to get Harris into office: she had to change her stance on genocide.
There was one way to keep Trump out of office, and it wasn't sitting on your hands.
See how you it switched to a personal attack about what one individual dies? That's form of misdirection.
"If Kamala had done this..." - not a personal attack.
"If you (which is a plural, by the way) had done this..." - clearly a personal attack.
But please, assume the you was singular. How are those two statements different?
I'm not a fan of false dichotomies, but FPTP devolves into a dichotomy. Pretending it doesn't, or that even inaction has no bearing on the outcome, is just wishful thinking. There were two choices to be had, and every American who had the option made a choice, whether through action or inaction. Sure, Kamala could have made a statement to not support genocide. Maybe she would even have won if she had done so. But at the end of the day, a choice was still made, by each and every American with the option to vote.
You are arguing with someone who is lying to you. You will never "win" this argument or convince them because everything that they say is a lie with a complete different agenda than what they say.
Whether they are a bot or a person, paid or freelance psychopath, they are here to disenfranchise voters and convince young people to throw away their vote on nonsense, or that their vote is essentially meaningless and they shouldn't bother.
Yeah. Everything that you don't like to hear is a psyop, sure buddy.
I was actually trying to be generous in saying that you had a plan and are doing a psyop... I mean it's painfully obvious that you don't give a shit about your own arguments, and you are obviously not dumb as most of the maga crowd. So if it is not a psyop, then it's some kind of masterbatory thing where you get off on upsetting people or being yelled at and insulted... At that's just gross... Not to cast shade on your kink, you do you king, but gross that you would involve other people in your kink without their knowledge or consent. I mean it makes you nothing more than a public masturbator, or some flasher waving their genitals at random people.
Kamala needed to adopt an anti genocide position to win the election. If you weren't advocating for that you weren't advocating to stop fascism. Simple as.
That's the issue you can't contend with, so you resort to ad hominems, claims of people being bots, etc. it's all to distract that you genuinely don't have an answer to the question if how Harris could have win the election if not for changing their position on this issue.
You can be mad and voters for voting against their interests. It's understandable and a valid criticism of voters. But what you can't do is claim that you didn't know that American voters can and will vote against their own interests. They did in 2016, clearly we both agree on that. They damn near voted against their own interests again in 2020, and if not for covid, Trump would have won that election. Relying on voters to simple vote better is political malpractice.
The strategy you are advocating for is that instead of the politician moving to a set of policies that their voters want and accept, we should rely on voters to simply "voter better". But we know Americans don't behave that way. We know you need to positively incentive American voters, especially Democrats, to show up.
The approach you are advocating for lost the 2016 and 2024 elections and handed the entire government to fascists.
Kamala needed to grow a penis and be at least half white to win the election with the way the Dems fumbled it. That's what the Democrats learned. They learned that external length of the candidates genitals mattered more than the lives of every Palestinian, more than global warming, more than affordable health care, more than avoiding putting someone who is openly fascist and openly declaring that he will kill anyone who stands against him.
Of course my arguments are ad hominem, that's because your arguments are lies and just as fake as Donald's tan. Your arguments wind around on themselves and eat their own tails. Psyop, psycho, or raging pervert are the only three things left once we eliminate all of the things that you and your arguments are obviously not.
You sound like a racist, sexist piece if shit with a view of elections that has consistently handed power to Republicans, over decades .
It's a simple fact that is now very well evidenced by even internal DNC post mortems. If Harris would have changed her position, she would have won the election. It's not because she had boobs. It's not because she was black. It's because she supported a genocide while trying to get elected among Democrats.
I'm not sure what you think your crash out here does.
Because one of those is a public figure who's supposed to be representing the will of the people and the other is just some random person.
Assuming I was using you in the singular. After that, the public is on the same level as a public figure, in my opinion.
You're just as wrong either way. If you're talking about the general public, then your demanding the people change their views to line up with those of a politician, rather than the other way around. Not only is that antithetical the the very idea of democracy, it's also just impractical. Isn't it much easier to get one person to change their views instead of millions? Why are you focusing on the millions then?
It's because you're looking at things from entirely the wrong framework - one that has internalized the supposed "superiority" of the ruling class and asks nothing from them, instead trying to discipline the public to serve the elites unquestioningly and unconditionally. Your worldview is completely upside down.
No, it's simply that I understand that voting is a method of selecting leaders from the pool of candidates, based on the limitations of the system used. If there are flaws with that system, and FPTP is very flawed, the election is not the place to change it. Working to change the voting method, removing the electoral college, all of those need to happen before the election. Once the election is held, you're bound by the system used. Presuming you have elections that aren't rigged or ignored, anyways.
Then what is the place to change it?
And what if they are?
You change the laws on how the vote is done. This is a legislative or constitutional process, depending on the jurisdiction (state, county, country, etc.)
And if the elections are corrupt, then the corruption needs to be dealt with, or things will continue to devolve.
Note that neither of those are the results of an election (assuming your constitution doesn't have referendums that can affect this).
This is just factually false, and it's as simple as looking at the vote results to acknowledge. You can want to present it as a binary, but in reality, voters have many options beyond vote R or vote D.
I don't really know how else to address this for you. Maybe you saw or heard some NPR or wall street journal clip about strategic voting and that was formative for your understanding of how elections work. Regardless, it was wrong because in the real world, when we run real elections, not hypothetical ones, voters choose to do or not do a wide range of different things.
That's not wishful thinking. That's looking at results from real elections. You aren't addressing reality, you are moralizing about how you wish things were, but aren't.
The point is that your moralizing and insistence doesn't have any bearing on how voters actually behave. You have to base your strategy on how things actually are, in the real world, backed up with receipts from real elections.
Strategic voting as strategy is irrelevant if voters don't actually behave that way. You might claim then that American voters are stupid voters who vote against their own their own interests because they don't abide by your approach. Ok fine. Then they are that way. But then you also must acknowledge that your outline if how to win an election is flawed because American voters don't behave that way.
You want voters to vote better but they don't. You want voters to be smarter but they aren't. If you are advocating a strategy that requires voters to be both smarter and better than they are, what's the likelihood of it succeeding?
You can't "fix" voter behavior. You can only adapt the strategies you rely on to accommodate real voters. Advocating strategic voting doesn't do this and lives in the realm of puritanical moralizing.
That's it. It's all that matters. There was one path to winning the election and it was to get the candidate to change their policy in the most important issue of the election. There was no other path to victory for the Dems.
We agree that voters don't meet your moral standard. But if you are advocating for strategies that depend on voters being different than they are, its your fault when those strategies fail.
Are you Kamala Harris? If you are, Mamala, if I can call you Mamala, why didn't you change your stance on Gaza so that you could win the election?
I apologize for interpretating the word "you" to mean the word "you". If you mean to speak of "they", you can use language like "voters", or the "electorate", or the "unwashed masses", whatever you prefer. But when you use the word "you" in response to something I say, there is no other way for me to interpret that other than by assuming you are directing the statement at me.
If that was all that mattered, people would have voted for less genocide, rather than refusing to vote so they could say they didn't vote for genocide, when in fact they said they were fine with whatever the rest of the voting public went with, which was inevitably some degree of genocide. Certainly, voting for Trump in protest wasn't a vote against genocide.
I'm sorry that your grasp of the English language is lacking. In that case, you, which is always syntactically plural, was used to refer to a singular individual.
being a shady asshole is the route to the Presidency, do you not see who was elected ?