Progressive Politics

3392 readers

949 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

238

[Video] Kamala Harris becomes visibly shaken and furious after being called a “right-wing war criminal” (i.imgur.com)

submitted 6 days ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

500 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Right in the middle

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

OK, so you live here. Do you need me to provide evidence for the widespread support for Israel among the voting population?

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Uh? what? Among progressives. Among Dem voters? Among Muslims? Among the people the dems needed their votes? How many polls? Lol the support wasn't enough to win her an election. So Ya.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Among Americans in general. If she opposed Israel she would have lost outright. There likely will not be an anti-Israel candidate in the Oval Office any time soon.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And I'm sorry but this just hit me.

she would have lost outright.

She would have lost outright...

She. Would. Have. Lost. Outright.

Compared to... (check notes) Lossing!?

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

An outright loss means she would never have a chance of winning. Taking the much less popular view would not make it more likely for her to win. Did you really need that clarified for you?

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Outright

So you're saying you know exactly how greater her loss would have been if she didn't stand up for human rights? If you know that since outright loss means, never had a chance. So since she didn't outright loss what did she need to do to get more votes from the right or left?

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

2nd definition- instantaneously was that really hard to placein context?

Do you need someone to explain to you that taking the less popular opinion will not make it more likely for her to win?

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Do you know what first past the poll means? Go watch school house rock.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Did you mean first past the post? That's not as much of a factor as the pro-Israel position was the more popular position and thus more likely to gain votes.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Popular on the right and center. Not the progressive base. So she would have lost by now votes is your unsubstantiated claim. Okay... So by losing more and would have lost more of the presidency? Are you saying winning by 1 vote or 1 million isn't the same in our system?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Among Americans in general.

Americans in general includes every last republican who would never vote for her. Centrist democrats need to quit trying to get the fascist vote just because they deeply admire all fascists.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

being anti genicide doesn't make you anti Israel. Simply not giving them the tools to do harm wouldn't even be enough. We need to actively protect both sides from each other, and return to original boundaries. That's not anti Israel. That's pro human.