From a pure political science perspective, if the Democrats were a real party they would either purge themselves of Zionists or purge themselves of anti-Zionists. This coalition is objectively impossible to sustain and will make them lose any time Israel is bombing.
United States | News & Politics
I blame the voters who just flat out couldn't be bothered. If they'd all showed and at least voted 3rd party on the president, at least the fascist wouldn't have control of Congress.
I blame Dems for shitting on everything so hard that people made the choice to not show up.
Non-voters can't fix what they've done, protest voters can't change what's happened. The Dems can absolutely still fix their party. There's only one group who deserves our ire in this moment.
That is what the right wants you to do. Find anyone to blame but them.
There was a huge propaganda campaign started specifically to get the centrists and undecideds to stay home.
Every election is going to be a repeat of this. Facebook, TV, YouTube, anyone who can push content is going to forever say both sides are bad. And people will listen to them no matter how educated they are because propaganda works.
Watch for it because they'll probably do it again: A conflict that America is only peripherally responsible for and cannot stop, being pushed as the number one issue in the next elections.
The people who say Kamala ignored their issue? You vote down ticket for democrats and push those people to support your issue. This in turn pressures the president to support your issue.
The democrats definitely will not help. They'll produce 6 unlikeable candidates and say, "well.. These are the only people who could possibly be our president. Also the primary is pointless because of superdelegates and split voting so we'll just go ahead and pick this one before 50% of the nation has even voted."
Shit.. Sorry, I can't stay on topic because I'm impossibly cynical at this point. I'm still voting democrat because I refuse to sit out or actively support fascism, but I'm heartbroken over the situation we're in.
The biggest group that stayed home after voting dem in 2020 were older white men/women and hispanic men
The protest votes were a non factor in comparison
The media blew this out of proportion to make leftists infight
"Leftists?" None of us are infighting as far as I know. Did you mean "Liberals?"
The leftist spectrum includes liberals, ultraliberals, and radicals. You are trying to redefine the word "leftist" to mean "radical" because the word "radical" sounds bad to many people. Radicals should just own the word "radical" but are too afraid too.
The very same problem occurs on the rightist spectrum of conservatives, archconservatives, and reactionaries. Reactionaries don't want to be called that because it sounds bad so they always pretend to be "conservatives" even though there is a clear difference in the definitions.
This post literally exists to make people mad at protesters who didn't effect the election in any way now that the data is out and we can LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.
But that doesn't matter here I guess, reality doesn't matter when there's straw men to seethe at
For the record, I've never seen anyone on Lemmy defend the DNC. We all know they screwed up. We also know that Trump is by far the greater evil.
I'm also angry that we now suffer the consequences and would have been delighted had Trump lost the election.
Just like on Reddit, they mostly shit on the voters, which is disgusting imo
Cool that it’s the DNC’s fault. Sucks that anyone who was working towards Palestinian liberation now has to shift their attention to not getting jailed or deported.
I heard the organizers are expanding their strategy to other issues, like protesting capitalism by refusing to buy food or stopping an oil pipeline by refusing to drive to the blockade.
They were quoted as saying “These failures are already guaranteed to be someone else’s fault, and that’s the most important part.”
This was my thoughts all along. By condemning the genocide they would have lost more votes than gained. It sucks that politicians have to choose votes over morality (the ones that actually have morality). The system is definitely broken.
DNC loyalists keep saying this, and it continues to be pure cope. The Biden admin did not begrudgingly support the genocide (or, as you euphemistically put it "fail to condemn") because of some realpolitik consideration - though it would still be unforgivable if they had - they actively supported it because it was an administration filled with rabid Zionists at the highest level, and they enthusiastically agree with Israel. The fact that they couched it in vague, non-committal platitudes rather than being blunt about their fanatical zionism WAS the concession to realpolitik. Notice that Bill Clinton - who is at a point in his life where he doesn't care that much about political appearances - spoke on behalf of the Harris campaign, he didn't bother to sugar coat their complete agreement with the most extremist brand of fascist Zionism.
The actual example of the amoral voter placating position is what Trump ended up taking: still ultimately supporting the overall settler colonial project of Israel, but forcibly pulling on the leash of the more viscerally bloodthirsty elements like Netanyahu, and making them keep the carnage at the more publicly acceptable levels they were at pre October 7th.
a statement distinguishing herself from Trump on Israel
Quoting @jordanlund@lemmy.world again:
Harris stated multiple times that she wanted a cease fire and a two state solution. Polar opposite of Trumps “sweep them out and take over.”
July:
August:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/politics/gaza-israel-harris-convention-speech/index.html
September:
October:
Every month from becoming the nominee until the election: cease fire, hostage release, two state solution.
These are not genocidal statements.
Trump?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-israel-pr-hugh-hewitt-21faee332d95fec99652c112fbdcd35d
“But they’ve got to finish what they started, and they’ve got to finish it fast, and we have to get on with life.”
She did, but you didn't listen.
Imagine supporting genocide in order to win, but then losing anyway.
DNC successfully elected the best guy for genocide. They still collected a fair bit of money. Is that a loss?
honestly disgusted by how meager and purely symbolic the demands made by the uncommitted movement were
as if getting every single thing on that list would have spared a single life
Trump won but you're still arguing about Harris. Weird as fuck. Do you have anything relevant to say? Picking on the democrats is so last election.
The Democrats in Washington failed us, and they won't admit it or retire. So of course we are going to target them... Otherwise, they'll try the same thing in 2 years and get the same result.
I'm afraid you don't see any of the depth in politics. Different people have different goals, and we actually need to openly discuss their goals if we're going to work together in the future.
Then have the Democrats shut up about voting Democrat whenever someone posts about Palestine. Democrats do not get to start a blame war and then pretend to be the victim
"Damn, you're all still talking about that Hitler guy? That was decades ago!"
I bet during the election you said "it's to late to change anything, just vote democrat"
This is the magical time when we get to change things supposedly, so we will be having these discussions with or without you.
Voting isn't some bargain between a thousand voting groups and one candidate. Let's break it down.
THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES
YOU PICK THE BEST CANDIDATE
Note that 'best' isn't 'great'; nor is it 'good', 'awesome', etc. And, while there are more candidates, sometimes only two have a chance (Hi Ross Perot!). So it's a binary choice. There has to be someone in office. You pick the least-worse one.
The unmentioned third option is "If you vote third party or don't vote at all, you accept the consequences of a worst-case scenario".
I'm really thinking America didn't educate people on 'this or that'.
Sounds like US democracy with the US voting system is deeply flawed and the only moral action is to no longer engage with it. Otherwise you are expected to choose between different approaches to an ongoing genocide.
THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES
That's not how democracy works...
Being restricted to two candidates is just like a one-party state with an extra choice for shits and giggles.
People vote with their conscience on whatever candidate they feel represents them. And it's THEIR business.
Anything else is NOT democracy. Nobody is entitled to your vote. That's the one power you have.
That’s not how democracy works…
It is unfortunately how the US democracy works. Nobody around today set this system up. We simply realized how it does and doesn't work.
Being restricted to two candidates is just like a one-party state with an extra choice for shits and giggles.
Nope. Two parties is a huge improvement over one. Three is an improvement over 2, etc.
3 > 2 > 1