> It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What about all the voters you lose by dropping support for Israel?

Nonsense. As can be plainly seen in the posted links, far fewer Democrat votes would have been lost by support for an arms embargo.

What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base.

> Democrats were powerless to stop the genocide.

Again, utter nonsense. Democrats voted against ceasefire four times at the UN; and made a mockery of domestic and international law by providing billions in arms to a regime that was likely to commit genocide.

And so it needs to be said: lack of money for Harris' campaign was not the issue. She outspent Trump, ffs.

> Gaza voters weakened them further.

That was a choice! Gaza voters would have strengthened them, if they had simply decided to stop arming a genocidal apartheid regime. That's what the polls I posted showed beyond doubt; and Dem elites knew all this months before the election.

> What would have been lost was the support of many Democrat funders - fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, Zionist billionaires, and a vast swathe of complicit corporate media. As in, the people perverting the party against the interests of their base.

This could have cost many seats in congress.

I acknowledge you might be completely right, but they were never gonna get the campaign and all of D congress to that position in the first place in a high stakes election.

> they were never gonna get the campaign and all of D congress to that position in the first place in a high stakes election.

If true, that would be just one of many reasons why they don't deserve our support.

The Democrats have repeatedly proven to be unable and unwilling to give anything more than token support to the existential crises of our time; be it forever wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, free speech, surveillance, torture, climate change, housing, healthcare, justice reform, election reform, etc etc.

By your logic above, all that would be justified.

Don't you get tired of being shepherded? Isn't the last 200 years of lesser evil voting [0] wearing kinda thin?

0 - https://pleasuretoburn.substack.fcom/p/lesser-evils-are-the-... - "Beginning in 1824, people made the “lesser evil” arguments in every single presidential election year I reviewed"

In this specific case the greater evil was clearly “the same or worse”, but with the opportunity for an irreparable, fatal outcome for Gaza.

I think lesser evils are present in every election. By your logic, total surrender is the only outcome.

I appreciate you engaging, but agree to disagree I guess.

> lesser evils are present in every election.

No, there are usually viable, non-genocidal third options - as there was in this election.

> By your logic, total surrender is the only outcome.

That's the very logical flaw which has you thinking that stumping for a genocide accomplice was 'the only option'. You're so close.

I have made a genuine attempt to understand what the third viable option is. I may be too dumb.

>a genocidal apartheid regime Or democratic state with the rule of law and free speech if we are being factual. Hamas knew exactly what the IDF response would be after carrying out their obscene, murderous pogrom on October 7. Hamas wanted their own people to die in the thousands, while they themselves cowardly hid in their tunnels built with aid money, because they knew they would get the support of useful idiots in the West like you.

The West should give Israel everything they need to wipe out Hamas. Whether it is in Ukraine or Gaza, when the barbarians are at the gate, the only answer is to kill them.