Well for starters, not to destroy relationships with our allies and trading partners. Not to implement tariffs. Not destroy the department of education. Not violate civil and human rights of thousands.
She wasn't perfect. She certainly wasn't anyone's first choice, but it was an easy choice. She would have kept a stable economy and protected the rights of citizens.
The Democrats' plan, as always, was to try maximising their investments without alienating so many people that they'd lose the election. Like usual, they flew too close to the sun, and got burned.
not to destroy relationships with our allies and trading partners. Not to implement tariffs. Not destroy the department of education. Not violate civil and human rights of thousands
The inverse of this.
The Democrat party hedged bets that people would just give them a victory, out of fear of Trump alone, while they focused on protecting their investments. They create disenfranchisement as a byproduct of enriching themselves, and this time they got too greedy and gave too much voteshare to Trump.
The Democrat party just chose Trump, and all the damage he has and will continue to have wraught, over the American people and Democracy itself.
You aren't making yourself very clear. Are you saying that
not to destroy relationships with our allies and trading partners. Not to implement tariffs. Not destroy the department of education. Not violate civil and human rights of thousands
was a result of "Kamal's Democrat's? Or that their platform was the inverse of it?
Running an ineffective campaign and offering the status quo is one thing. However, the status quo offered stability and slow progress without doing any of them above.
I'm saying that Trump's actions were and are endorsed by the Democrat party, because the fear of them allows greater ability to enrich themselves.
The campaign wasn't 'ineffective', it was intentionally truncated. There are plenty opportunities to stampede over the opposition, but the Democrats would rather risk all of this, than do anything that'd result in them giving up their wealth.
The fact is Americans have effectively two options. She was the better of the two. To say the the democrats endorsed Trump's actions is certainly a take. So you believe democratic leadership wanted Trump to win because he's a boogeyman?
And that's it, they are the villains in this story? Not the man consistently breaking law after law and crashing our economy?
The American political system is uniparty, not duopoly.
I don't believe the Democrats wanted Trump to win. I believe the Democrats were willing to increase the odds of Trump winning, for as long as it means they could continue to block any progress which would threaten their personal fortunes.
Nobody is the "villain" in this story. Everyone is trying to protect themselves and improve their lives.
There's a force towards centralising power, that's a seemingly innocent means which both Trump and Democrats use. The near unconditional support, of the Democrats, gives them unaccountability, which stops any counter-force from balancing that centralisation of power. Without the counter-force, the best America can hope for is a smooth slide into hell, rather than gritted slide.
1
u/Dry-Association2559 2d ago
What was her plan exactly?