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.
You responded to the previous poster quoting something they never said and your answer doesn’t follow the conversation. JFC read your own comment chain before being an ass.
No, why do you ask?
Because your comment is so disconnected from reality that it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Genuinely concerned for you.
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.
In what way is anything I said disconnected from reality? What are you confused about?
The fact that you’re asking just leaves me more concerned for you.
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?
You responded to the previous poster quoting something they never said and your answer doesn’t follow the conversation. JFC read your own comment chain before being an ass.