What? Running a candidate people like is probably the most important thing in an election. And the DNC knew from polling that she was unpopular as a VP. Seriously what on earth are you talking about that having a candidate people like doesn’t matter.

deleted by creator

My crazy idea here is maybe the DNC should run candidates people actually like. There’s no way in hell if they ran a primary Kamala would have won the nomination given how unpopular she was as VP.

Find me one Kamala voter as excited for her candidacy as the average Trump voter was for him, and I’ll find you a dozen who were only supporting her because whe wasn’t the other guy. Same story with the Biden campaign in 2020 and Clinton before that.

Well, let’s see here:

Harris supported genocide You voted for Harris You effectively voted for genocide

See, unlike you, I’m not okay with making such a compromise. Here’s a crazy idea, instead of making the boneheaded decision to run Harris, the DNC could have run a candidate who was actually popular, or at least not notably unpopular. But no, we got the sidekick to genocide Joe.

And let me remind you that the situation in Palestine got so terrible under Biden’s policy of enabling Israel to no end. Seriously, Trump’s been in office for a week or two, the overwhelming majority of the devastation is Gaza happened under a blue administration who was more than happy to give an endless supply of lethal aid to Israel for the last year and a half. FFS, if the Democrats had the spine to pull the pipeline of tax dollars to Israel within the first month of the ethnic cleansing, we never would have reached this point. Nearly the entire death toll in Gaza so far happened under Biden.

But hey, go off on blaming the voters who voted based on some pretty fundamental moral principles instead of the DNC for giving unlimited unconditional support to Israel for well over a year now.

If Harris was gonna be swayed by public opinion, it would have happened after the massive protest vote in Michigan. It didn’t. It could have happened after polling showed how incredibly unpopular her Gaza policy was with her party base. It didn’t. And it didn’t change when she actually needed votes, it’s safe to say it never would have changed.

If Harris has been elected, a huge number of Democrats would be more than happy to sweep current events in Gaza under the rug, because now our person is in charge, and they can do no wrong.

deleted by creator

So noble that you don’t reject genocide on principle, only by if who does it is on your team or not

The amount of mental gymnastics you’re doing to justify the Democratic party supporting genocide is genuinely sad. And I do mean that, like it’s truly sad to me that so many people have convinced themselves that it’s a fine and normal thing that a nominally progressive party should support the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. I didn’t vote for that platform and I never will, because it’s truly, fundamentally evil. “Oh but it’s better then the other guy” so? I’m still voting to kill these people. I’d sooner not vote at all.

If Kamala had won, I absolutely guarantee you the overwhelming majority of Democrats would have conveniently forgotten how we were bankrolling these terrible crimes overseas.

I’m sure the kids being killed in airstrikes really care if the bombs were bankrolled by a blue or red administration.

He’s not, don’t get me wrong. But at the end of the day, Kamala Harris still supported genocide. If I voted for her, I’d have been voting for this fundamentally evil policy. Frankly, I’m not interested in doing that, and I stand by that.

deleted by creator

And yet, on other Lemmy instances like world, people will fight to the bitter end defending Joe Biden’s policy of enabling Israel. And if you dare suggest Kamala Harris was also going to keep supporting Israel, you’ll be crucified lmao.

I guess genocide is okay if it’s backed by a Western power (but only if a democrat is in charge).

Okay so this may come across as crazy, but myself and many other people didn’t want to vote for a candidate that supported ethnic cleansing, even if they were on “our team”.

So to paraphrase: “I don’t oppose ethnic cleansing in principle, only degree”

Kamala Harris was an evil MF for bankrolling Israels genocidal campaign. They could have changed their stance on Israel/Palestine, and they had abundant opportunities and warnings to do so, but no.

At least China has the guts to call out the West for supporting the genocide in Gaza, something out own Democratic party seems wholly incapable of.

I like how you’re being downvoted with no replies. Like, even “vote blue no matter who” shills know Kamala’s position on Gaza was indefensible

Yeah, because Kamala was so pro-palestine lmfao. The democrat party’s policy was literally “maybe we’ll support genocide a little less than the other guys. Maybe.”

Like, any sane party would have seen how polling showed that a huge chunk of your base rejected your stance on Palestine and reevaluated. But nope, Dems went full steam ahead with it.

Like goddamn, you’re here calling other people trash because they didn’t want to support a candidate who was okay giving a blank check to a foreign country earmarked for carpet bombing civilians? Get over yourself jesus.

I’m gonna split this up because it’ll be a long reply, but I’m gonna reply to each part of your comment:

1. If I kill a man and run away to Russia, that means Russia is the good guy here, because I won’t take any consequences Murder is an easy example here. It’s silly to compare valuing privacy from your government to homicide. Here’s an example I’d use; given the current administrations recent anti-trans actions, let’s say the federal government requests a list from OpenAI of all users who had talked to ChatGPT about feelings of gender dysmorphia so they can be put on a blacklist for federal employment, or fire them if they’re closeted trans workers. And that could get a whole lot uglier than hiring/firing practices.

2. many people may have different opinion on that, wheter a company should cooperate with governmen Not only does OpenAI reserve the right to work with law enforcement, OpenAI has plenty of lucrative federal contracts they wouldn’t risk jeopardizing by being difficult with data requests. And that’s all besides the fact the current CEO has expressed that he’s totally open to working with the current administration.

3. But the thing is Deepseek has to coop I really don’t care if DeepSeek has to cooperate with the Chinese authorities. You still haven’t given a concrete reason how that actually presents any kind of tangible risk to me.

4. Deepseek is on the enemy side for us - west Enemy how? We’re not at war. I have nothing against China or its citizens. I have absolutely no stake in whatever conflict you’re talking about.

5. you want China to get bigger, or your country Again, I truly don’t care. I can’t think of any reason I should care other than pure nationalism.

6. you should be against using deepseek app and website if you care about interesr of your country. Okay, which do you think is the more likely scenario here:

A. China declares war on the US and somehow manages to defeat the single largest military in the world, plus all of it’s allies, because they got some basic user data.

B. Domestic law enforcement / Federal US Government uses available data to target political dissidents and other “undesirables” (a tactic they’ve used on political activists in the past)

There’s no reason to worry more about the potential surveillance of a country literally on the other side of the planet when your own country that actually has jurisdiction over you has access to that same data and far more methods to target you.

All the whistleblowers probably lol

Personally, I think the West is doing fine job tearing itself apart right now