Alt Text:
Sarcastic bluesky post saying [time traveling back to 1933 to make sure to tell Germans to protest Hitler less vigorously so as not to alienate bougie centrists who want to go to brunch undisturbed, thus preventing the rise of fascism]
Alt Text:
Sarcastic bluesky post saying [time traveling back to 1933 to make sure to tell Germans to protest Hitler less vigorously so as not to alienate bougie centrists who want to go to brunch undisturbed, thus preventing the rise of fascism]
Israel was always going to do just want they wanted to unless someone stood up to them. That was never going to be Trump, nor was it going to be Harris, let’s be real here for a second. That sweet, sweet AIPAC cash is just too hard to say no to, and, frankly, Israel is a really charged topic that candidates would prefer to avoid. I find your distinction meaningless, it’s like handing an alcoholic booze while saying “nooo, please don’t drink it, it’s bad for you” only to turn around say that you didn’t help them destroy their life because you oh so gently reminded them that booze is bad for their health as you handed it to them. This is a cigarette company defense.
They’re doing it to Trump, just on Iran, because they know Trump isn’t going to meaningfully stand up to them, while still not wanting to get the US into full blown war. They’d be doing it to Harris too, because the DNC didn’t even trust her enough to let her run her own campaign, they sure as fuck weren’t going to let her run her own presidency. We’d probably have some DNC turbodonor or AIPAC mf as SecDef.