Fair. I suppose not enough, because Harris was the candidate. There were still a lot of people who were gung-ho about her. if the anti-Trump opposition collective decided genocide was a red line, either the democrats would have to nominate a non genocidal candidate or a new major candidate would emerge.
once again i think that comes down to primarily how the system works rather than the public. i think where my perspective differs is that i view this as another case of institutions protecting capitalism. she was the candidate given the most screen time, the most funding for her campaign, etc. people who aren't necessarily knowledgeable about the system and are purposely mislead by the government fell into a pitfall. i don't necessarily think it was the publics fault for that—if that makes sense
I totally understand what you are saying and I think it holds a lot of truth. Its purely subjective, I suppose. Americans are taught since a young age that non-western lives don’t matter. And we do benefit from the exploitation of the Global South. Its like the fire nation in ATLA. How much are regular nation people responsible? A philosophical question.
Oh the people in charge are 100% the most to blame. My original point is yes, its subjective, BUT there is definitely some degree of complicity on the public’s part. Its not like Pinochet’s Chile or Saudi Arabia. The people in charge were literally elected by people voting for them. The military doesnt need to force them into power.
u can still think she's the better candidate out of the two. you can still think america would've been better under her... but if ur out here looking past her genocide support to shout from the rooftops about how great she would've been then i have an issue with u.