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.
All you ever talk about is how genocidal Harris is, when I don’t think she is actually pro genocide, and I know Trump and other republicans really are. Your negatives about republicans are few and far between, but you talk at great lengths of the evils of the democrats, and then you get cross with people who point out that you’re echoing right wing talking points.
The genocide thing is standard Republican projection - Trump literally supports the genocide in Gaza, calls himself the best king of Israel ever, then calls Biden “genocide Joe”. Every accusation an admission.
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.
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?
All you ever talk about is how genocidal Harris is, when I don’t think she is actually pro genocide, and I know Trump and other republicans really are. Your negatives about republicans are few and far between, but you talk at great lengths of the evils of the democrats, and then you get cross with people who point out that you’re echoing right wing talking points.
The genocide thing is standard Republican projection - Trump literally supports the genocide in Gaza, calls himself the best king of Israel ever, then calls Biden “genocide Joe”. Every accusation an admission.
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.