"reee i won't vote for harris because gaza genocide!!1!1" users on lemmy suspiciously silent now
Because they got banned for saying Biden was going to lose.
They got banned for saying funding Israel's genocide wasn't going to win voters.
They got banned for saying Trump being a major threat means we need a good campaign.
When you ban the people you're going to see less of them.
Gazans are experiencing that hell under Biden-Harris.
Also most of the dissidents got banned from here.
They are either humiliated, or they literally believe 4 years of genocide is worth it to send Democrats a message. I'm done giving a shit about their opinion. Half of them were probably Russian or Israeli anyway.
We tried to warn you that continuing to support genocide would be too much for some voters. You wanted genocide so badly that you screamed that anyone who tried to warn you was a Russian.
You're getting the policy you refused to abandon, and you're blaming your left.
So tell us, what was the realistic option that would have halted the genocide?
crickets
Some of us have things to do in addition to entertaining entitled genocide supporters on lemmy. I'm not sorry that I didn't respond within your timetable of checks comment times one hour.
But you still haven't answered the question, who is the realistic non-genocise candidate we should have all voted for to prevent this? You're so adamant that anyone who voted Harris loves genocide so much, so who was the non-genocide candidate that you, in your wisdom, voted for?
But you still haven’t answered the question, who is the realistic non-genocise candidate we should have all voted for to prevent this?
That wasn't the question, and this comes off as gloating that both major candidates agreed with you that we should have kept funding genocide.
The question was:
So tell us, what was the realistic option that would have halted the genocide?
Which I answered. Biden should have adhered to the Leahy Law. That was a realistic option. I don't know if it would have stopped the genocide, but we would no longer be complicit.
They can't say the simple obvious answer. 🤣
They literally did, stop being a redditor who expects an instant reply for you to post on your basement corkboard of "internet arguments won 19374, arguments lost 0".
You didn't get a reply in an hour and thought you won? Touch some grass.
They literally did not. They were asked about who to vote for and dodged like leftists always do when asked that question. It's not being principled - it's being stupid.
Crab has said they voted for Harris before. Never once changed their story. I also voted for Harris, in California.
So what's the goalposts now? Crab must dox themselves to prove they're an adult in America?
Wasn't in this thread. Must I stalk somebody to know what they think?
I already said what I think. I don't care that genocide supporters don't accept it.
"genocide supports" 🙄 Guess you are too then if you voted for Harris?
Here's your reality - nothing you or I did was going to stop Israel. Full stop. I've simply decided that since it's going to happen anyway I should do what I can to maximize other results for good. That's not "supporting genocide" you simpleton.
“genocide supports” 🙄 Guess you are too then if you voted for Harris?
I would have preferred that she stop agreeing with you and supporting genocide.
What is with your "you support genocide" bs though? Do you think it's some clever "gotcha"? You've said it to practically everyone.
You don't support genocide? Then why are you still carrying water for candidates that did? The election is over.
What the hell do you mean?
I mean, you won't admit that Biden should have stopped sending weapons to Netanyahu, and that Harris should have put some daylight between herself and Biden regarding the genocide you totally don't support.
I won't?
Ain't seen you do it yet. And you had a lot more opportunity than just the one hour you gave me before smugly posting "crickets".
Oh, I get it now. You're super butt hurt over that.
The "crickets" was in reply to
So tell us, what was the realistic option that would have halted the genocide?
Not because you hadn't answered, but that there is no answer and leftists won't simply say "there was no good option so I picked the least bad one". And then they accuse everyone else of "supporting genocide" which you have done.
But you did vote for Harris, so congrats on supporting genocide too.
So, still refuse to say that Biden and Harris should have stopped their support for genocide. I knew you wouldn't.
EDIT: crickets
Yes.
Biden should have abided by the Leahy law. No democrat has any business supplying a genocide.
Whether or not it would have stopped the genocide, who knows? We didn't need to be complicit.
So handing the presidency to Trump is an improvement?
So you can excuse genocide because the other guy also supports it?
So you just can't help putting words on other people's mouths?
Like where you wrote as if people were claiming trump would be an improvement?
Actions speak louder than words.
Like when Biden said he wanted a ceasefire but kept sending Israel weapons anyway?
Like when Trump said he'd "end it" immediately?
Those are words, not actions.
Go tell the other guy.
Actions speak louder than words
Oh, this wasn't you? There must be a different SpaceNoodle.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.