Sounds like your turn to step up to the plate then huh?

Very true, but I assume you don’t mean “then why bother at all” right?

And if I’m correct in that assumption, then I figure we can agree that mitigating what you can is still a worthwhile endeavor?

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/how-to-shop-ethically

Lol.

Now that you “established reality”, let me add one caveat of reality that keeps getting ignored when folks make your argument.

Left wing voters are not motivated by genocide, nor trying to meet those who do support it in the middle with “just a bit of genocide, as a treat”.

Maybe America can’t give up its “most important ally in the middle east”. But in that case, unless the Dems could find a way to bridge the gap between appeasing Israel and stopping genocide, then it was obvious they were going to lose.

But they didn’t even try to. FFS they didn’t even try to pay lip service to the very notion. Nor did they try to rally their base with policies their base has been asking for for decades. Instead they campaigned on “we are a big enough tent to welcome Republicans like Dick Fucking Cheney”. With a last minute candidate swap putting forward someone who lost the last primary by a frankly embarrassing margin.

I voted for Kamala, I kept these opinions to myself to not push voters away from doing so, and I pushed the harm reduction argument to anyone who was considering abstaining or voting 3rd party. I still believe it was the best play we had with the hand we were dealt. But it wasn’t the best play the Democrats had, it was damn near the worst.

When we have decades of data to show how many people don’t vote, and how fickle those who do are, it’s on the political party to motivate their voters. And Dems just didn’t fucking bother. On the contrary, the reality is that the party the motivated almost all voters in the country was MAGA. Be it for or against Trump. Almost no one was voting FOR Kamala.

So welcome to reality, the reality that you cant win an election based on the virtue of “being the second worst option”.

Weird, I said this shit for years, and I was upvoted into the heavens, agreed with, called a hero, and acknowledged as a result.

Maybe is not what was being said?

Not that I’m fully on board with the theory, but you might be surprised how often “solving” a high profile case is placed above actually getting the right man.

This is a publicity nightmare for the police, and getting someone in custody “achieves” placating the public and key stakeholders.

Repeating things about this kids views on the Uni-bomber and referring to his writings as a manifesto “achieves” diminishing his status as a folk hero.

So while I won’t endorse any particular theory until more evidence comes out, it wouldn’t be the first time putting a scapegoat in jail was deemed more important than letting people think the “perp” got away. Even if the hypothetical real shooter kills again, controlling the narrative can be it’s own goal in cases like this.

It’s from the BBC, they are using the British spelling.