jonne

And then what? Iraq got destroyed by air power, Afghanistan got destroyed by air power. Now both countries are hot beds of terrorism and instability.

But escalating with Iran is fine I guess?

So if you think you can win without trying to court their votes, why the vitriol?

Also: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/election_scorecard/2007/10/sour_grapes.html 20% of Clinton supporters ended up voting for McCain, the number for Sanders voters is 10%. Sanders did everything to make sure Clinton won, and he still got blamed for her terrible campaign losing.

Why can't she reach far to the left to get their support instead? If potential Jill Stein voters can lose her the election, she could see what those people care about and reach out to them?

They would've probably been fine with a stop on sending offensive weapons while keeping iron dome stocked or something like that.

Instead they're trying to find the mythical voter that gives a shit about what Dick Cheney thinks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isRVf986QkA

Probably triggered by his 'let's just listen to music instead of doing a rally' stunt that shows he's lost his marbles (more than usual).

Harris has her own share of problematic endorsements (Cheney, Gonzalez,...). Sure, they're not explicitly racist, 'just' war criminals, but she accepted them and is actually bragging about getting them.

Yeah, I was making a rhetorical point to contrast to how a certain someone treated an endorsement by a war criminal.

Stein's campaign says it wants nothing to do with Duke, the former American Nazi Party member.

It's one thing to be endorsed by an undesirable party, it's another to accept it or even invite them to campaign with you.

Depends on how she reacts to it. If she takes him campaigning, it's definitely bad. If she rejects the endorsement it's something different.

Or intentionally ran one over with a bulldozer, or shot them in the head while wearing a press flak jacket?

Musk can send him to Mars for safekeeping.