this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
360 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers
6385 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This post uses a gift link which may have a view count limit. If it runs out, there's an archived copy of the article available as well

So much for people who didn't believe the warnings that Trump is a fascist who admires Hitler.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 120 points 3 days ago (18 children)

Non-voters and Green Party voters, thanks for making this possible!

[–] Intergalactic@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Write this for me professionally and factually correct: The Green Party’s votes did not have enough voters to secure a win for Harris in this election cycle if those votes went to Harris instead of Stein. This was Hillary 2.0, but at least Harris had some policy.

As an independent voter, I cast my vote for Harris, believing she was the most suitable candidate for individuals like myself. However, it's important to acknowledge that the Democratic Party bears responsibility for this outcome.

Harris focused her efforts on appealing to Republicans rather than progressive voters, which was an unexpected approach. The sense of entitlement from the party leadership, and party loyalists, is, frankly, quite astonishing.

What do you expect would happen?

She failed to criticize Biden, and failed to better address the Israel-Gaza conflict.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

Because she expected actual progressive voters to already be well educated on what trump 2.0 means for the country...now they eat trump soup, like everyone else.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They wanted hope, not more of "the same"

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 days ago

So instead they chose despair

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That is not who I was talking about. Drawing working class people leaning trump or undecided back to her was something she sort of tried to do and failed because of vague economic plans and because they don't recognize trump's fascism under his clownery. These are not the progressives I mentioned, who should know better, even if they were not decisive to her loss in the end.

...

But now they're gonna get change for sure.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)