To say that they don’t want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but that’s not what we see

It’s EXACTLY what we see. 40 years of campaigning on Roe v Wade as law, zero moves to make it happen. Spending their own fundraising on Republican opponents. Espousing positions that people want but never actually following through. Compromising before negotiating. Democrats make their money from Wall St, just like Republicans do, so they have to lie about wanting to win for progressives to vote for them, but they don’t actually want to win because then they’ll be exposed. When they have a majority, it’s always a small majority and there’s always one to three Democrats that adopt the “spoiler” role, either switching sides, going independent, pretending to be a Blue Dog, or lying about the will of their own constituents being opposed to Democrat positions.

With Hillary, they didn’t conspire to make Hillary lose.

They conspired to lose the election. Not to make Hillary lose, but to choose the person who polled terribly, to choose the positions that wouldn’t mobilize the voters, etc.

They didn’t want Bernie to win because he wasn’t a Democrat

No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely ahistorical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. He’s very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he’s useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.

Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party

No it wouldn’t have. Because general voters don’t elect party leadership, and the president doesn’t suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.

If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I won’t give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.

They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide. The country is built on genocide - non-stop genocide. Just go look up how many people the USA killed in each military action after WW2. Then go look at how many indigenous people they killed here. Then try to find the numbers for how many slaves they killed. Just for comparison, the very tiny island of Haiti was replacing around 50,000 slaves (because they were being worked to death) annually. During the Haitian revolt, hundreds were gassed by the French in the bottom of slave ships. And that’s just the KILLING. Then you’ve got the erasure of language, child separation policies, which you know about now but literally follow an unbroken line all the back to before the founding of the country, because separating kids from their parents is how you kill an entire social culture, forced sterilization of 1/3 of Puerto Rico and of indigenous and Black people was happening through the 1970s. Both parties are aware. They participated. They think it’s fine. They think it’s correct. They fucking paid the slave owners for property losses but refuse to pay reparations to those enslaved or their descendants.

The USA is a genocidal settler colony that asserted its own leadership, live a cancer that broke free from its host and now lives independently. All the politicians are engaged, fully or partially, in ongoing centuries of genocide.

Anyone who starts a sentence with “you people” has likely got some morality issues of their own.

Foreign policy has to account for all the consequences of any decision, including counter moves. As a “friend of Israel” the US has some influence (less and less it would seem). From the outside we would have none whatsoever.

No, that is one of the serious issues, but I also know that UN security council votes would make no difference whatsoever.