This is literally a situation where Kamala would do NOTHING AT ALL towards Israel different from what Trumps is doing - i.e. not doing anything about it.
Of all the possible scenarios you could use to point out that Lesser Evil is not Greater Evil, this is the worst one since Kamala would do the same toward Israel as Trump, but be more of an hypocrite about it (like saying some bullshit about “the US does not interfere with internal Israeli affairs” whilst sending them more bombs).
It would be way better to compare the actions of a possible non-Evil candidate that the Democracts should have fielded (but did not because the party is under the control of evil sociopaths) with those of Trump.
“What would Bernie have done?” sounds like a much better question to suggest here as the contrast with Trump would be huge.
Of course, pointing out that there are several Democrats who would act way differently from Trump or Kamala in this would bring up the point that a party which sidelined non-evil candidates in order to field a “as evil as possible but just shy of the other party’s” Presidential candidate needs to change and that would be questioning the perfection of he tribe and the quality of its chiefs, a step too far for a tribalist party faithful parroting “those who didn’t vote for Kamala ‘voted’ for Trump” DNC propaganda …
Say what you want but Kamala would not have stuck her micropenis in the Iranian hornets nest
Trump did. Gaza has still been obliterated. The rest of the middle east is on fire. The global economy is turbofucked for probably the rest of our lives.
Also netanyahu doesn’t have any tapes of Kamala from Jeffery.
So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).
Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.
The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.
Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.
One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.
The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.
Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.
This is literally a situation where Kamala would do NOTHING AT ALL towards Israel different from what Trumps is doing - i.e. not doing anything about it.
Of all the possible scenarios you could use to point out that Lesser Evil is not Greater Evil, this is the worst one since Kamala would do the same toward Israel as Trump, but be more of an hypocrite about it (like saying some bullshit about “the US does not interfere with internal Israeli affairs” whilst sending them more bombs).
It would be way better to compare the actions of a possible non-Evil candidate that the Democracts should have fielded (but did not because the party is under the control of evil sociopaths) with those of Trump.
“What would Bernie have done?” sounds like a much better question to suggest here as the contrast with Trump would be huge.
Of course, pointing out that there are several Democrats who would act way differently from Trump or Kamala in this would bring up the point that a party which sidelined non-evil candidates in order to field a “as evil as possible but just shy of the other party’s” Presidential candidate needs to change and that would be questioning the perfection of he tribe and the quality of its chiefs, a step too far for a tribalist party faithful parroting “those who didn’t vote for Kamala ‘voted’ for Trump” DNC propaganda …
Say what you want but Kamala would not have stuck her micropenis in the Iranian hornets nest
Trump did. Gaza has still been obliterated. The rest of the middle east is on fire. The global economy is turbofucked for probably the rest of our lives.
Also netanyahu doesn’t have any tapes of Kamala from Jeffery.
¯\(ツ)/¯
So, Kamala would be less incompetent than Trump (such a low barrier that literally a stone I got out of my shoe the other day is less incompetent than Trump).
Meanwhile, Bernie would have stopped support of Israel when they started Genociding in Gaza.
The difference between Kamala and Trump is an inch, the difference between Bernie and Trump is a yard.
Strangelly the “Kamala beats Trump” parrots never seem to mention the alternatives to Kamala who could have been the Democrat Party candidate and are vastly better than BOTH Kamala and Trump.
I suppose I forgot that Bernie was the Democrat candidate in 2024?
One wonders why some relentlessly insist in treating the selection of a Democrat Party presidential candidate as a fait accomplit which should not be looked at, criticized or challenged, whilst treating the Presidential vote in a completelly different way.
The idea that the choice of candidate matters not implies that who the candidates are has no influence whatsoever in who gets elected, which is not at all consistent with the observed results of US Presidential elections over the years.
Surely anybody wanting that America is better led, rather than driven above all by party loyalty, when trying to figure out what went wrong in order to avoid a repetition of it, will look at the entire process rather than treating some of the choices that led to a Trump win and those who made them as “beyond question, it is as it is” whilst at the same time treating other choices and those who made it as “entirelly to blame for the outcome”.