771
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
771 points (82.2% liked)
Political Memes
1578 readers
8 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone else. Throw Bernie's half animated corpse up there as the candidate. Congrats he would've won. Because he wasnt a cop trying to get elected to the anticop party, nor far right economically trying to get elected to the center right party.
The fact you're reduced her to a cop is showing you're headfirst in the koolaid
She was literally responsible for police reform. You know, shit like making them wear body cams and undergo training to recognise bias, as well as community programs to get people back into the community as opposed to branded criminals for life. You know, the shit you want to happen. And all that for one state - one of your most progressive.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/kamala-harris-police-biden-vp-pick-california-senate-a9662801.html
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/kamala-was-a-cop-black-people-knew-it-first/
https://www.c-span.org/program/campaign-2016/new-york-delegation-breakfast/450152
At 00:32:19 her speech begins, which has (via the transcript):
Bernie's name wasn't on my ballot so he couldn't have been a viable opponent. The only person on the ballot with any chance of beating Trump was Harris.
Bear in mind, I think the Dems could have run a much a stronger ticket with someone other than Harris but that doesn't change the fact that she was the only viable competition in the election that actually happened.
Cool, you know you can write in the candidate, right?
In any case if dems wanted to be elected, they could try not being republican. Even in the face of fascism no self respecting person would vote for a republican.
The key wordyou seems to be missing is "viable."
Well Harris wasn't a viable candidate, as proven by her ridiculous loss against one of the most hated men in history.
Same goes for Clinton. And Biden was polling worse than Harris before his handlers finally made him pull out.
So which neoliberal is a viable candidate again?
Are we just going to do the same thing in 2028, with, using your word, a nonviable candidate?
Probably. If we're still doing elections that is.
You all seem to think I'm saying that Harris was a good candidate. My only point is that she was the ONLY other option we had on the ballot. That, in and of itself, is a massive problem.
The problem was she wasn't a choice for a lot of people. That's something you guys have consistently failed to understand.
For people that actually suffered under the Obama or Biden regime, Harris did not represent a greater future than Trump. If you are given a choice of either shooting yourself, being shit, or ignoring the entire thing while trying to to find a way to survive being shot; most people will choose the latter option, which is simply not voting.
Homelessness hit a record high under Biden, and only climbed throughout his term. Credit card debt soared, yet consumer spending on nonessentials went down. People aren't worried about the status quo or the collapse of the US, people were worried about tomorrow.
When you have that situation, they don't give a fuck about a status quo candidate lying to their face about how great the economy is and how much nothing different they'll be doing.
Their choice was not Harris or trump, their choice was vote or not vote. And given their experience during Biden's term, they chose to not vote.
Would love to have whatever drugs you need to think writing someone in would have actually been a good idea
It had a better chance than a rightwing cop trying to get elected to the dem party, or an even more senile Biden.
You can't run incredibly right wing candidates and expect anyone to vote for them, unless you're running them in the furthest right party.