Mildly Infuriating

It's OK, your explanation is not required.

About the first one, I guess it was actually Tim Walz that, when asked if he supported a preemptive strike on Iran, replied that Israel has a right to expand itself and that he would back Israel since it is a US ally unlike what he thinks Trump would do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMIEaiS88pI

And Tim Walz is who Kamala Harris chose as VP, so let's not joke around and pretend Harris would have disagreed with any of this. The Democratic party was always the fascist party but with "the mask on" as opposed to the Republican Party which is "mask off"

But also, while less literally, Harris did say that (and I'm quoting an article linked below):

"Diplomacy is my preferred path to that end, but ALL OPTIONS are on the table,” she added.

Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, also lambasted her opponent, Republican nominee and former US President Donald Trump, arguing that he was not tough enough toward the Iranian threat.

“I am clear-eyed. Iran is a destabilizing and dangerous force,” Harris said. “When Donald Trump was president, he let Iran off the hook. After Iran and its proxies attacked US bases and American troops, Trump did nothing. And he pulled out of the nuclear deal without any plan, leading to an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program.”

“On the other hand, our administration struck Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria when they attacked American troops, and we are the first administration to ever directly defend Israel">

https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/10/11/kamala-harris-vows-do-whatever-necessary-prevent-iran-acquiring-nuclear-weapons/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-options-on-the-table-to-stop-iran-from-going-nuclear/

At the end of the part I quoted from the article she is literally celebrating about having strikes Iranian proxies already. Let's remember that Israel striked an Iranian embassy, which is considered an act of war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus

But kamala Harris has supported, is supporting and would have supported all of this, because she sees Israel as an important proxy of the US in the middle east. And the white house uses Israel to project it's power against the Arabs countries and destabilize them. This is why she was never going to end the Genocide in Palestine.

Also, your only excuse for the fact that she wanted the "most lethal army in the world", is that the previous Dems also wanted this ( like obviously, she is from the same party as them, what I'm saying is that that is actively bad and should be a red line, an army should only be defensive, this is not what she was implying if you go back and listen to the DNC speech) and Republicans as well. Again, supporting 100% Hitler because another candidate is 101% Hitler is not that great of a talking point like you think it is. Actually on this particular issue both candidates are the same level of "Hitlerite". That's the party you support, and because you support it, you completely oppose the development of any 3rd party that would not have this crazy warmongering policy.

To end for now my reply, a candidate that supports the foreign nuclear weapons policy the US followed in the past decades is actually a huge negative because the world has never been more tense (as you seem to notice as well in your comment). That policy is getting us closer to nuclear war and you think it's good that Kamala Harris wanted to follow it !? Again, she is just being the fascist with the mask on, instead of being mask off like Trump.

And just to remember you, I do not support Donald Trump, I never did and never will.