twovests

twovests wrote (edited )

What do you stand to gain from this?

🍭your friends love you and enjoy being around you🍭

🍭you are ethically obligated to assume your friends enjoy your company🍭

🫂you are a good person who is appreciated🫂

6

twovests OP wrote

Asking genuinely-- who is Starmer? I tried googling it and only get the recent UK PM, who I figure isn't the same playbook.

In either case, I really still get the impression that she could've won over more support than she'd lose if she, e.g. just allowed the one Palestinian speaker at the DNC.

2

twovests OP wrote

Yeah; I agree a lot with what Bernie has to say (and I wish we had gotten him in 2016 or 2020) but this is how I feel too. I don't think it's exaggeration to say that this election is existential for me personally, but even then, I couldn't vote for her. I ended up voting for Clauda de la Cruz as a protest vote.

I live in a normally-blue state that could feasibly swing red by the protest vote. If dems lose easy blue states to protest votes, maybe they'll start meeting voters where they're at, instead of bowing to AIPAC and evangelical Christians.

I can't stop thinking about how many votes Harries left on the table. We saw the Uncommitted National Movement do a huge amount of organizing during the primaries, mobilizing otherwise-unlikely voters in amazing numbers in swing states, preparing easy wins for Harris on a platter when she took the candidacy. She threw away hundreds of thousands of unlikely voters -- and likely the election -- because she loves genocide too much.

The "less genocide is still genocide" argument is reductionist but true. I think we're going to have four years of seeing what "more genocide" looks like. Even if the Dems go way left, the issue might be moot by 2028.

2

twovests wrote

yes!! some of our best forums are basically for just one person to post. even if you were the only raver in all of jstpst, we want to see yur posts :3

6