314
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
314 points (82.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44149 readers
1091 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Of course they are. Harris might lose because of her positions on Gaza. And in spite of this, most Democrats, including Harris, refuse to budge on their "ironclad" support of Israel. Just like the Biden administration has refused to budge in the face of countless protests against their support for Israel over the past year.
I'm arguing against the whole "elect them and then pressure them into moving left" rhetoric because that has proven to be a completely ineffective tactic.
Seems like your tactics has been ineffective. I mean especially when you consider trump taking office and unleashing only terrible shit that a addled minded fascist would want.
Oh don't get it twisted, none of these are "my tactics" and I understand that the current Dem leadership won't budge on their support for genocide. They've made it clear that their tactic is "try to win a presidential election while going against their own base". We'll see how effective that tactic is in around two weeks :-).
Only a smug prick could be happy with such an outcome. And I'm supposed to think your support for Palestine is altruistic.
When did I say I was happy? I don't want Trump to win any more than you do. Which is why I'm so upset that the party with the best chance to stop him is choosing to risk losing the election (and jeapordizing the rights of millions of Americans who will be harmed under a Trump administration) by continuing to support genocide. Doesn't this make you angry?
This is why we call it "bad faith actor."
At least after the election your type will crawl back from the hole they wriggled out of.
No but seriously, does it not make you angry that the Dems are willing to gamble votes if it means they can keep helping Israel murder children? Genocide is that important to them? These are the people who are supposed to be better than that. If that doesn't make you angry then I don't think I'm the one acting in bad faith. Criticize my smiley face all you want, I'm not the one gambling with the future of the country and we both have every right to be angry about that :-).
You want my 300 page thesis why the democrats can suck my balls?
The vote isn't about me getting all my desires then retiring in a utopia. It's about steering the country in a direction. Right now the tracks are set to fascism and plutocracy. You want to be mad get mad in time for the primary and get kamala out. Which should have been joe this season but the electorate thinks the way to win is through extorting the psychopaths that climbed their way into government.
Nah, I cant be mad that the country founded on genocide and slavery is still invested in hate. I can't be mad the electorate that elected Trump still exists. I'm mad that come February I will hear only crickets and the giant shit sandwich we all consume every 4 years will be forgotten.
I disagree with equating "I can't vote for a president who wants to continue to help commit a genocide" as "I expect a utopia and will settle for nothing less". I'm not going to vote for Jill Stein or whichever third party candidate, but I don't blame people who do. I blame party leadership for their failures. If they have a better vision for the future, it is their job to convince people that they are the best for the job. Right now, Dems are choosing to gamble their own votes so they can keep helping fascists commit a genocide and what increasingly appears to be a war of expansion and conquest in Lebanon.
Hell yeah. I have voted in every primary I could since I hit age 18.
You can, and you should be. Being mad isn't the same as being surprised.
Totally agree on this point, and I don't know why you assume that I'm one of the many who choose to spend four years at brunch before starting to care about politics again.
Because you're fighting me on the fact that the people are the ones with true power.
I'm arguing against the idea that electing Kamala, then expecting to be able to move her left after the election, is a viable plan. If more people didn't tune out once January rolls around, then maybe it would be more feasible. But you and i are in agreement that a lot of people simply tune out once the election is over. Libs who protested kids in cages under Trump ignored kids in cages under Biden.
Voters have leverage now. If Kamala wants our votes, then believe me I would be thrilled to see her earn them.
It's a false leverage. The only thing it will do is make things worse for yourself. That was plain from the onset.
Why is kamala willing to lose rather than earn more votes from the left then?