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.
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"
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.
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.