Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I fail to see any logic with anyone interviewed. They knew things would be worse for Palestine and Lebanon with the donvict, they know they personally may face hardship as a consequence of the election. They know they were duped.
But they wanted to punish Democrats and Harris particularly. Does that satisfaction make the rest of the shit sandwich taste good?
Not just worse for Palestinians. Remember, Trump enacted the first US Muslim immigrant ban in 2017.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/the-enduring-harms-of-trumps-muslim-ban
But they wanted to punish Democrats and Harris particularly. Does that satisfaction make the rest of the shit sandwich taste good?
It doesn't, but they won't admit it. Spite is a powerful driver for self-delusion and denial.
The logic is that it's simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, "yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!"
It's just a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy. The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others, who want to do what they can to make a positive difference in this world. And Kamala's brilliant plan was to appeal to those bleeding hearts with a message of, "yes, I'm fine with genocide, but the genocide will go even faster if my opponent is elected!"?
What dirt-fucking moron thought that was a good idea?
The Democratic party is meant to appeal to people who care about others
That hasn't been true since Clinton and the blue dogs. They became what Republicans used to be over the last 30 years. It has been said many times, but there simply isn't a viable left wing/worker's party in the US. Other countries have labor and social democrat parties for that.
They used to be a hell of a lot more radical. The "new deal" was originally planned to go a hell of a lot further with social policies. We could have had taxpayer-funded healthcare in the 1940s.
What dirt-fucking moron thought "I'm against genocide, so I'm going to make the genocide go faster! That'll show 'em!" was a good idea? You don't tell someone not to shoot you in the foot by telling them to shoot you in the head instead.
Because at some point it becomes a distinction without a difference. At some point you're sitting there deciding between Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini might objectively be the better choice, as his crimes are fewer than Hitler's by pure magnitude. But given that choice, a lot of people will just refuse to participate.
People don't vote based on pure logic. That's not how human beings operate. Don't make your voters feel like they need to go to confess their sins to a priest after voting for your candidate, and maybe then you won't have people refusing to vote for them.
As the song goes, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." If you sat out knowing full well that doing so is a de-facto vote for Trump, you still chose to sit out. That means you still chose to make things actively worse. And you made that choice knowing that it would make things actively worse for them and for you.
Your choices have consequences. Your choice will make things worse for yourself and the people you claim to be standing up for. And you made your choice knowing that doing so would make things worse. You share in the responsibility for that, and all the cognitive dissonance in the world may make you sleep slightly better at night, but it doesn't change that fact. Congratulations. You sent the Democrats a message to put up a "better" candidate in 2028. I'm sure that the few million Palenstinians that will be either displaced or outright killed between now and then will be grateful for that.
I voted for Harris. I support Gaza, and I know that Harris would not have likely done very much to help them. But I do not believe that the answer to that problem was to send someone in who's plan is to kill them faster while fucking over a shit-ton of other people in the process.
And I get it. It's a classic example of Sophie's choice. I don't particularly like the "Hitler/Musollini" bit but let's just say "Killer A" and "Killer B". I get it; No matter which one you choose, you're dead either way so why does it matter? Totally get it. But that wasn't what was here. It was "Killer A saying you may die in six months" vs. "Killer B is going to kill you tomorrow." See the difference? A lot of people would likely want to live another six months, if only to hold onto the hope that they'll find a way out in the interim.
Instead, they voted for a guy who wants to send missiles over there like it's the 4th of July.
Vote now. Protest later. Don't elect Trump.
a zero-IQ, complete brain death of a strategy
Sounds like a description of the GeNoCiDe jOe crowd who helped end democracy
Imagine believing the USA was ever a democracy.
Yes because it was a piece of shit already so let's make it worse and pretend to be moral while doing it
Maybe you missed the statements calling for a cease fire.
Someone else assembled this reference for those ignorant of the news.
who want to do what they can to make a positive difference
Then they elect Trump. Smart.
The logic is that it's simply a shit campaign strategy to run on a message of, "yes, I will abet genocide, but my opponent will abet it even harder!"
This has been explained. I worry that going over it again will somehow not be helpful. Just let the leopards eat all our faces like you decided.
You have to understand Harris accepted millions in bribes from pro-Israeli lobbying groups.
It was a hard choice between genocide and money, but Harris found a way to sell out America and keep both.
As did literally every other president for the last 40+ years. Now you've elected Trump instead. Smart.
Libs trying to argue for participation in the system by pointing out how it's a complete failure.
Standard dem election strategy.
Yeah better elect Trump. That'll sort it.
Vote now. Protest later.
If they didn't want to lose because of protest votes they should have thrown a bone to the protesters before the election.
The DNC chose this, everything else is just an attempt to deflect blame.
I'm not saying they weren't shit. But electing Trump was not the way to protest.
I have a hard time blaming the voters for anything when they live in the most heavily propagandized country on the planet. Ultimately the voters opinions don't matter when they can be shaped by billions of dollars in ads and media time.
It's not too dissimilar from how a Trump voter thinks in my opinion. Alot of them know they're getting fucked but just want someone they hate to get fucked a little harder and they're happy.
TBH I just want the dems to stop supporting genocide. Since the dems aren't motivated by empathy or principle but by self-interested politricks, I'm hoping that a trump-led genocide will motivate the dems to stop genociding people.
Well it's great to hear you've found a silver lining for a fucking genocide. /s
Narrator: it wasn't. Everyone in the country loses.
spoiler
It was not.
The article is a lot more nuanced than the headline. Arab- and Muslim-Americans knew that neither candidate cared about them, and the article explains various ways that affected their thinking.
It really was, well except for Rola Makki, her view was just bog standard Republican cognitive dissonance.
Still, absolutely infuriating that they would not vote for Harris even when they knew deep down it would be worse and while I can feel for them and actually do agree with some of their points about Democrats not really being behind minorities, I still find it hard to really feel too bad knowing they not only screwed themselves, they the rest of us too.
They didn't lose the election for Harris. She failed to get voters across the board. And they're the one group with the most justified reason to vote spitefully and a conveniently "othered" minority to focus on so the people who ran that terrible campaign don't have to own up for their failures and liberal white America that thought "the Democrats don't need to do anything for them because they have no other options" can avoid recognizing that that was a bad sentiment with which to build a coalition.
They didn’t lose the election for Harris.
Right... I don't think there are enough Arab- and Muslim-Americans in PA to swing it, and she needed that to win the election, even if she had won MI. I suspect it was her failed messaging on the economy that made the difference. But we don't have final numbers yet so it's hard to tell.
Whereas the incredibly close elections like 2000 or 2016 could be blamed on basically any one group as pleased the accuser, this one is an across the board loss. That's not going to stop the moderates from trying to scapegoat minorities though, because otherwise they might need to address that a dedicated dive to the center was an abject failure.
Next up on the list, the trans people, who despite being entirely ignored by the campaign are clearly the people who need to be shoved back in a corner for the convenience of white moderates.
Some Dems have already started to blame focusing on trans people’s basic rights as humans as the reason they lost.
Step 1: Avoid anything related to social justice for the entire campaign and never forcefully counter conservative narratives about vulnerable populations.
Step 2: Blame being too woke for losing.
"Alawieh couldn’t bring himself to vote for Trump; he voted for Harris. But he didn’t necessarily want her to win either. “I wanted her to beat Trump, but Harris winning would mean my family stays in the same nightmare we’ve come to know. Trump winning makes that nightmare more uncertain, and the ways it will harm my family less clear. But what is clear is that the U.S. government, whether Democrat or Republican, will keep sending weapons to Benjamin Netanyahu illegally. That’s what I have a problem with.”
... Jesus fucking Christ guy... For being involved in politics you have to understand there are 3 things you cannot do no matter what: you cannot change military spending, the MIC won a long time ago. You cannot stop our addiction to Israel. You cannot touch the billionaire class.
Those things have proven to be impossible. Hell will have, first come to even exist, and then freeze over before those things happen... But sure, you have to try, I get it. Just now everyone suffers for it. :/
Er, he voted for Harris? I’m pretty sure he understands the situation.
But even those who didn’t… I can understand why someone being repeatedly punched in the stomach would have difficulty deciding who to call their leader between the person punching them and the person off to the side jumping up and down saying “Ooh… let ME have a turn!” They know that voting for a third party will still end up with one of these two punching them, so the reasoning shifts a bit.
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
They "turned against?" Inflammatory much?