fuck the policies on the right, but also fuck some of the policies on the left. That’s why I can’t endorse.
That’s a lame take. Unless you personally are running, you’re not going to agree with everything a candidate says. Hell, even if you do run you’ll probably end up making decisions you’re not happy with. Nothing is going to be perfect, that’s not the world we live in.
She’s not really pointing out any nuance though, she’s just vaguely saying “both sides suck, but this one sucks slightly less”. At that point, why even bother with a public announcement at all? Plenty of celebrities don’t endorse anyone and no one care because they’re not out making press releases about it.
I can say that there are views that Harris has that I think suck, and at the same time say that I think Trump’s views suck, but Harris is better. It’s okay to be critical and still live in the reality of living in a FPtP system. Why make a public opinion? Just look at what her comments have brought. People are talking about her criticism of Harris, while also seeing that even though Harris doesn’t exactly align with her views, she’s still a clear better choice than that shit bag Trump. Intentional or not, her comments have gone viral and spread her views which will undoubtedly have an effect on some of her fans.
I think I can confidently say that Harris will be less bad for Palestine than Trump. So while it’s not her genocide, your statement is fairly accurate in that Harris is way better than Trump.
Yea I guess she just keeps arguing for unconditional support and unlimited funding for the genocide even though Netanyahu has spit in Biden’s face every time he opens his mouth.
I’m not voting for president this year unless there is a permanent cease fire and the genocide has stopped.
I refuse to vote for the lesser of two genocides.
Just admit to yourself (it’s already obvious to everyone else) that you don’t give a fuck about the Palestinians and move along.
Did you not watch the video? She explicitly mentions transphobia and genocide. And she made that video because a quote of hers was taken out of context (much like you’re doing) and people were saying her not endorsing Kamala meant she supports Trump.
So people should just vote and stfu about any nuance within a party they disagree with?
Of course not. That’s helping Trump win. You have to overwhelmingly support everything the party does at all times, especially the stuff you disagree with.
I’ve literally never heard anything even remotely close to this. Can you point me to someone who has said something that would make this an even remotely fair assessment?
So people should just vote and stfu about any nuance within a party they disagree with?
Know your audience.
I live in San Francisco. We’re not voting for Trump. I feel perfectly fine discussing the merits and drawbacks of different Dem candidates with people around me.
When you’re up against a legitimate fascist threat? Close. Fucking. Ranks. There’s no place for infighting when the margins are this close.
Until we get voting reform, the US presidential Election is a binary choice, one or the other. An endorsement is just that: supporting one candidate over the other (and obviously their policies come along with them).
Doing it this way comes across as lukewarm support and isn’t as helpful in getting people to vote for that candidate. Kamala Harris is an empathetic, intelligent person capable of introspection. Get her elected, then we can pressure her to reconsider certain policy positions…
Because… she’s an empathetic, intelligent, introspective individual, who listens to experts, her advisors, and citizens. Not everyone needs to be manipulated to do the right thing…
I invite you to do the same and to be skeptical of lofty claims that aren’t evident in the behavior and stated policy of the politicians that you support. If they are going to do something that motivates you as a voter then they will run on it, not just sell you “good faith” and let you fill in the blanks with whatever ideal picture that paints for you.
Also what policies? Like what’s the point of feigning a moral stand if you don’t define it? If she has legitimate grievances with the Democrats or leftist politics (yes pedants, I know they’re different and I’m saying “or” to include both, not to conflate them), then she should voice them. Otherwise she’s saying nothing but playing into the bs “both sides” false narrative that enormously benefits the right.
I think she is absolute right and within her rights to be critical and unenthusiastic about the Democratic options, but without actually offering critique then what is her weak centrist take accomplishing?
Assuming this is a centrist take is part of why she is pissed off. She isn’t endorsing because she opposes genocide and Dems treatment of trans people.
Dems are too far right for her and people are acting like she is saying trump has his good points.
Because we don’t live in Candyland, we live in reality. Conflating the two currently viable parties is centrist, in impact if not in intent. The reality is that harm reduction is the adult way to process complex choices in the world. All of the things she claims to care about will be objectively worse under Republican control, full stop. And shitty as it is, the Presidential race is currently a binary, again full stop. Claiming anything else is ignorance.
If she, or anyone else, actually cares about breaking the binary, you don’t do that flirting with a ridiculously unrealistic longshot (this word does not even begin to accurately describe the magnitude here) in the presidential, you do it by focusing efforts on legitimizing third parties where they are potentially viable - local and smaller scale races. You put in the fucking work and put your boots on the ground - you canvas your local community in support of local third party candidates, you inform your neighbors of the issues and importance of third party options locally, or you fucking run third party in viable elections yourself if no third party option exists. Talking about breaking the binary by conflating both sides in the presidential election is ignorance, reductive, and entirely non-productive.
Best case scenario Roan is wildly naive to reality, but even then her words only muddy the waters and encourage preventing very real harm reduction, full fucking stop.
That’s a lame take. Unless you personally are running, you’re not going to agree with everything a candidate says. Hell, even if you do run you’ll probably end up making decisions you’re not happy with. Nothing is going to be perfect, that’s not the world we live in.
So people should just vote and stfu about any nuance within a party they disagree with?
Maybe I’m just not picking up what you’re putting down, but that’s how your comment scans to me.
Genocide to the left of me, genocide to the right…… here I am stuck in the middle with you….
She’s not really pointing out any nuance though, she’s just vaguely saying “both sides suck, but this one sucks slightly less”. At that point, why even bother with a public announcement at all? Plenty of celebrities don’t endorse anyone and no one care because they’re not out making press releases about it.
I can say that there are views that Harris has that I think suck, and at the same time say that I think Trump’s views suck, but Harris is better. It’s okay to be critical and still live in the reality of living in a FPtP system. Why make a public opinion? Just look at what her comments have brought. People are talking about her criticism of Harris, while also seeing that even though Harris doesn’t exactly align with her views, she’s still a clear better choice than that shit bag Trump. Intentional or not, her comments have gone viral and spread her views which will undoubtedly have an effect on some of her fans.
Yes, Harris’s genocide is way better than trump’s. Agree 💯
I think I can confidently say that Harris will be less bad for Palestine than Trump. So while it’s not her genocide, your statement is fairly accurate in that Harris is way better than Trump.
Yea I guess she just keeps arguing for unconditional support and unlimited funding for the genocide even though Netanyahu has spit in Biden’s face every time he opens his mouth.
I’m not voting for president this year unless there is a permanent cease fire and the genocide has stopped.
I refuse to vote for the lesser of two genocides.
Just admit to yourself (it’s already obvious to everyone else) that you don’t give a fuck about the Palestinians and move along.
Username checks out.
Did you not watch the video? She explicitly mentions transphobia and genocide. And she made that video because a quote of hers was taken out of context (much like you’re doing) and people were saying her not endorsing Kamala meant she supports Trump.
Of course not. That’s helping Trump win. You have to overwhelmingly support everything the party does at all times, especially the stuff you disagree with.
I’ve literally never heard anything even remotely close to this. Can you point me to someone who has said something that would make this an even remotely fair assessment?
Two comments up I quote a comment that is, and not just remotely, calling out criticism of policy of the US left.
PS It has just occurred to me that you’re being sarcastic. Please disregard lol
That seems to be almost the exact opposite of saying you have to agree with all of the policies of the left.
Know your audience.
I live in San Francisco. We’re not voting for Trump. I feel perfectly fine discussing the merits and drawbacks of different Dem candidates with people around me.
When you’re up against a legitimate fascist threat? Close. Fucking. Ranks. There’s no place for infighting when the margins are this close.
Until we get voting reform, the US presidential Election is a binary choice, one or the other. An endorsement is just that: supporting one candidate over the other (and obviously their policies come along with them).
Doing it this way comes across as lukewarm support and isn’t as helpful in getting people to vote for that candidate. Kamala Harris is an empathetic, intelligent person capable of introspection. Get her elected, then we can pressure her to reconsider certain policy positions…
If she’s already elected then what reason does she have to listen to you?
Because… she’s an empathetic, intelligent, introspective individual, who listens to experts, her advisors, and citizens. Not everyone needs to be manipulated to do the right thing…
You are living in pure fantasy.
Nope. Just actually paying attention! I invite you to consume a wide variety of news sources…
I invite you to do the same and to be skeptical of lofty claims that aren’t evident in the behavior and stated policy of the politicians that you support. If they are going to do something that motivates you as a voter then they will run on it, not just sell you “good faith” and let you fill in the blanks with whatever ideal picture that paints for you.
Also what policies? Like what’s the point of feigning a moral stand if you don’t define it? If she has legitimate grievances with the Democrats or leftist politics (yes pedants, I know they’re different and I’m saying “or” to include both, not to conflate them), then she should voice them. Otherwise she’s saying nothing but playing into the bs “both sides” false narrative that enormously benefits the right.
I think she is absolute right and within her rights to be critical and unenthusiastic about the Democratic options, but without actually offering critique then what is her weak centrist take accomplishing?
Assuming this is a centrist take is part of why she is pissed off. She isn’t endorsing because she opposes genocide and Dems treatment of trans people.
Dems are too far right for her and people are acting like she is saying trump has his good points.
Because we don’t live in Candyland, we live in reality. Conflating the two currently viable parties is centrist, in impact if not in intent. The reality is that harm reduction is the adult way to process complex choices in the world. All of the things she claims to care about will be objectively worse under Republican control, full stop. And shitty as it is, the Presidential race is currently a binary, again full stop. Claiming anything else is ignorance.
If she, or anyone else, actually cares about breaking the binary, you don’t do that flirting with a ridiculously unrealistic longshot (this word does not even begin to accurately describe the magnitude here) in the presidential, you do it by focusing efforts on legitimizing third parties where they are potentially viable - local and smaller scale races. You put in the fucking work and put your boots on the ground - you canvas your local community in support of local third party candidates, you inform your neighbors of the issues and importance of third party options locally, or you fucking run third party in viable elections yourself if no third party option exists. Talking about breaking the binary by conflating both sides in the presidential election is ignorance, reductive, and entirely non-productive.
Best case scenario Roan is wildly naive to reality, but even then her words only muddy the waters and encourage preventing very real harm reduction, full fucking stop.