That part is true, but that doesn’t mean you need to lurch into conspiratorial thinking to try to explain it.
There’s a much simpler explanation: the Democrats did what their large corporate donors forced them to do in order to continue receiving the bribes.
It’s corrupt, but it’s neither a conspiracy nor required any sort of coordination with the Republicans. It’s simply an emergent property of a plutocratic system.
The system itself has to be dismantled; singling out the participants in it for individual/single group blame feels good and is morally justified, but doesn’t actually work to solve the problem.
In other words, you largely aren’t wrong, but you wrote it in a way that made you sound like an unserious nutjob. If your goal is to persuade, you should rethink your phrasing.
I’ll take the bait: really?
How many more people would have voted Democrat if Harris would have lurched left instead of right the moment she had that first momentum/steam?
If she would have screamed just support for things like living wages this election would have gone 100% different
That part is true, but that doesn’t mean you need to lurch into conspiratorial thinking to try to explain it.
There’s a much simpler explanation: the Democrats did what their large corporate donors forced them to do in order to continue receiving the bribes.
It’s corrupt, but it’s neither a conspiracy nor required any sort of coordination with the Republicans. It’s simply an emergent property of a plutocratic system.
The system itself has to be dismantled; singling out the participants in it for individual/single group blame feels good and is morally justified, but doesn’t actually work to solve the problem.
In other words, you largely aren’t wrong, but you wrote it in a way that made you sound like an unserious nutjob. If your goal is to persuade, you should rethink your phrasing.