Democrats sued to keep her off the ballots in system states it would have mattered. They knew the stakes and guessed voters would crawl back after the current administration.
I personally voted Kamala (yes I know and it was a deeply painful decision). Looking back im not quite sure why, she never really had a chance and she certainly wasnt a good candidate. I suppose its because I genuinely don’t care about electoral politics. Workers liberation can only come from revolution.
Non sequitor. Not what I said and not a Republican.
Campaigns are about winning swing states, those are just the rules of the game. Kamala lost that game worse than any Democrat in nearly 40 years. Maybe the rules we have aren’t fair, and if they were different, she would’ve lost by a smaller margin. But then, both campaigns would’ve been run completely differently, the same candidates might not have even been the nominees, etc.
By the actual rules of the actual game, Kamala lost extremely badly.
Talk to a centrist about raising the national minimum wage sometime, and it becomes clear quickly that they don’t care at all about raising the minimum wage once their state has done it.
Damn, really? Maybe the Democrats shouldn’t have put up a doddering, old, dementia-addled, genocide-enabling maniac for President, then, so that there wasn’t the whole candidate-switcheroo last second. Let me go blame myself for this.
You’ve been playing genocide enabler since before the inception of your country. Maybe, if you’d have thought enabling genocide enablers leads to people who might enjoy genocide sooner, the whole moral dilemma might not have happened in the first place?
But no, it’s the people with a conscience to blame for this.
“God did the State of Israel a favor that Biden was the president during this period, because it could have been much worse. We fought [in Gaza] for over a year and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted,” the former Israeli ambassador said.
We have Biden on record encouraging ceasefires and aid.
While unconditionally shoveling weapons and signing aid packages for neatanyahu’s genocidal apartheid regime. Oh, and his administration ran interference for netanyahu at the UN.
Pro-genocide centrists (which is a tautology. genocide is the only policy centrists have ever actually stood for. it’s all they are. it’s all they have ever been or ever will be.) expect everyone to whom they lie to accept without question that words speak louder than actions.
The topic is who doesn’t have a chance to win an election period you keep trying over and over and over and over and over again to change the topic but I won’t let you.
The topic is who doesn’t have a chance to win an election.
Someone who gets the most votes doesn’t really fall in that category no matter how many times you try to change the topic.
Since selectability doesn’t matter, I think everyone should just vote for their grandpa. Nearly all grandpas would be a good president. When the fascists win, it doesn’t matter. We voted for the best candidate. We can rest easy.
My comment was removed by the mods… probably because I let my rage show. Though the mod log shows rule 2 instead of rule 1 :P
Here’s a longer and nicer version:
I’m a (US) liberal, and I don’t approve of any of the views described by kittenzrulz123. Lumping half the country into a single bucket is not going to give you a good overview of the myriad ideals we might have individually.
You have a choice. You can look at the political landscape at the moment of the election and choose one of four options:
vote for the guy who will absolutely fuck over everyone he can for his own profit. We knew what he was back in 2016 and he isn’t going to change.
vote for the lady who has a chance to win, is probably still crappy for some demographics, but is miles better than #1 and not likely to declare war on a random country because she’s hungry.
vote for someone who has a 0% chance of winning, effectively throwing the vote to the rest of the population.
abstain, also throwing the vote to the rest of the population.
At this time, our election system really only works for two parties. Any third-party vote is useless, if not counterproductive. If you can’t understand how that math works, let me know and I’ll break it down for you. I’d love to change that, but the process is by using our ability during primaries to put forward more liberal candidates that support election reforms, not by putting our heads in the sand and voting 3rd party hoping that we will make people notice… hint: they will not.
If you don’t like your choices when you go to the voting booth in November, the solution is to get involved in late November and make things better next time. Join a local democratic organization and become part of the solution. Complaining online about how your choices suck is something we can fix if we all jump in. If you’re not doing that, then you are abdicating your responsibility and allowing others to make the choice of who represents us instead. If you choose not to be part of the selection process, the very least you can do is vote for the ‘lesser evil’ and not make things worse.
Side note: the Primary election is the end of that selection process, not the start. Putting your values on the primary ballot is where you should spend your energy if you’re mad at the status quo.
I will admit that I’m angry that we didn’t get a Democratic primary and that Harris was ordained as Biden’s successor without any popular input. The DNC is to blame for that fuck-up. It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine, the US economy, US healthcare, foreign relations, and dozens of other topics than trump is.
Would Claudia de la Cruz have been better? Sure. Her platform looks awesome. Did she have even a chance of winning? no.
It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine
Nope, this is just your wishful thinking, and also why the ‘lesser evil’ pitch isn’t compelling, because the people making it are unwilling to be honest about the evil that they’re supporting.
Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Anarcho-Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
In what ways do the Republicans respect equality before the law? I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Democrats are neoliberal/conservative. I’m more okay describing them as liberal because the voters tend to be, but the party itself is not.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
Capitalism coopts ideology. Liberal voters vote for a Democrat, then capitalists bribe the Democrat to do something else.
What’s ironic is that the objective fact of the genocide in Palestine is built on liberal thought.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
Your criticisms of the Democrats don’t seem to be that they’re liberal, but that they’re not liberal enough.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like “If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps”, “if you get sick that’s your own fault”, “if you become homeless that’s your own fault”, etc. It’s never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
“Liberty” for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
Incrementalism has always been a lie. Democrats run on tiny improvements then work with republicans to block what they ran on.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I’ve been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you’ve given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren’t in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you’re saying “just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better” I agree that’s naive and there’s action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they’re “stay home and don’t vote” I agree with you that’s nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It’s just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can’t do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our “I voted” sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven’t heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I’ve watched politics incrementally change from Clinton’s Third Way to Bush’s War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I’ve watched Fox news incrementally change, I’ve watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I’m hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I’m not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow “parties” to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)… why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly. Liberal ideology calls for the capitalist class to hold all the material power, inevitably leading them to do away with liberal reforms because the ideological liberals don’t have the power to stop them.
If you have been following politics from the Clinton era, then you wound have seen the progress and incremental change first hand especially regarding social rights.
Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
We went from that to adding new letters to the ltgb alliance every few years. To pronouns and kinks like furries being accepted.
A black president was unimaginable. There were still people alive that experienced segregation.
Most of what you are listing are reactions to the progress. The bigots pushed back, and they won partly because they convinced us to be more cynical and divisive. To ignore and forget the progress that was made and spin as negatively as possible all the change we see.
Incremental change is moving forward 3 steps after falling back 2, not giving up because we couldn’t be at step 5 by now.
Once again, socially left and economically right isn’t left! There’s a reason why Republicans blather on about LGBTQIA, while also embracing the likes of Santos, Thiel and Cook. For goodness’ sake, can you not see the mismatch between words and actions of politicians of any affiliation?
Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
Democrats spent decades fucking about with half-measures until the courts stepped in. And since democrats are so utterly useless at everything, they didn’t codify Obergefell (after all, they didn’t want to kill the filibuster they haven’t bothered to block any of trump’s agenda with) and the supreme court is likely gonna overturn it. But that’s just an opportunity for more fundraising spam, which was the sum total of democrats’ actions when the courts overturned Roe.
Hey, it’s the self admitted troll who has dedicated themself to stalking every single comment I make because they got big mad I said genocide denial is bad.
I’m confused, when you talk about voting “Democrat,” do you mean, for the Democratic-Republicans? I was thinking of voting Federalist, personally.
Since our system makes it impossible to change from the two currently existing parties, it follows that the two parties we have now must be the ones we started with.
But regardless, this is typical shortsighted liberal (i.e. capitalist) analysis that only looks at the immediate outcome and only at electoral politics. If a significant portion of the electorate can make a credible threat to sit out if their demands are not met, then they can leverage that threat to get what they want. The right is much more willing to do this because they put their values above reason, and it works - many Republican candidates understand that if they look soft on things like abortion or guns, a sizable portion of their base will defect, even if it means voting for a crank and throwing the election. Democratic voters are much more committed to being “reasonable” and so refuse to set any red lines anywhere, and the results are clear: the right successfully shifts the Republicans to be more extreme, the Democrats follow, and the left falls in line and accepts it. We are desperately overdue to start learning from their successful tactics and from our own failures, setting down red lines, and thinking beyond the current cycle. And we can debate where exactly red lines should be set, but if genocide doesn’t deserve one, nothing does.
Moreover, the facts of physical reality, the material conditions, and the myriad of crises we’re facing demand radical changes beyond what we are told are possible in the existing system. But those things are physical, natural, immutable facts, while our political system is, on a fundamental level, manmade. We do not have to abide by its rules and what it tells us is and isn’t possible - but we do have to do that regarding the laws of nature, which tell us about things like climate change. Monarchy had no mechanism built into the system to transform into liberal democracy, and yet, here we are. That’s because there are fundamental mechanisms for change that exist within every political system, whether the system wants them to or not, and I don’t just mean revolutions, but demonstrations, strikes, etc. And so, the party I voted for, PSL, participates in electoral politics for the express purpose of building organization beyond electoral politics. Helping a candidate who I see as fundamentally unacceptable win an election is less important that helping to promote that sort of organizing.
I’m no longer at my computer where typing is easy. I thank all of you for responding in good faith, and I’ll be reading the various links. Thanks for engaging with me.
Other than that, you just showed how electoralism under capitalism literally doesn’t work, but somehow think you can reform the system? Just how? Y’all spent decades fighting for the bare-minimum of woman’s rights and public health, that being the right of abortion, all to have it taken away in the blink of an eye and you genuinely think the system can work?
Revolution is the only solution. Even if USians managed to elect a really good reformist, the dominant class will not take lightly to that. We take the path of revolution not because we want it, but because it’s the path the bourgeoisie forces us to take, they will simply not allow you to meddle too much with their system without consequences, and will fight to keep it in place, just like the monarchies of the past fought these same bourgeoisie that violently took the power away from them to establish themselves as the new status quo.
Also, the US is a constant threat to leftists abroad, just need to look at Chile on 09/11/1971, when democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende was killed in a US-backed military coup that installed neoliberal dictator Pinochet into power, which is further proof of the problems of electoralism, but on an international scale.
It’s tragically hilarious how many people think Gaza would be worse-off if Harris won. Like, goddamn, are they not watching the news? Trump’s basically at a quarter-chub thinking about putting another one of his shitty towers there once everything is said and done.
Just goes to show how many of these virtue-signalers never gave a damn in the first place. They just wanted to look good for their internet points.
Gaza was literally just as bad under Biden, and Harris was emphatic about continuing his policy.
But because you have some psychosexual impression that Trump is “at a quarter-chub” (which you apparently got from “watching the news”, which fucking channel was this from), you’ve decided he’s worse
It’s hilariously hypocritical that you accuse others of “virtue signalling” (great to see democrats wholly embracing MAGA rhetoric), because you don’t have any actual qualitative or quantitative argument for Harris being better, just a vague vibe about her being more virtuous.
The only thing that would be different under Harris is that the US would still be bombing Yemen on Israel’s behalf
They just wanted to look good for their internet points.
A lot of the people who didn’t vote for Kamala over Palestine have gone to protests, and many of those people have been arrested or worse. That’s not even getting to the Palestinian Americans who have had family members killed by U.S. bombs.
Your vile ass is saying it’s all internet shit to them while you vote for the people dropping those bombs.
If this were posted on reddit, I feel like you would’ve got more upvotes. I always wondered what type of people were here before the reddit protests. They do say Russia sows discord on both the left and the right, but I don’t think this is their doing. There is no listening going on and people are unempathically hyperfocused on just their topic of choosing. I’m checking out some subreddits…
Removed by mod
I voted third party for Claudia de la Cruz. There were options on the ballots that were against genocide.
Democrats sued to keep her off the ballots in
systemstates it would have mattered. They knew the stakes and guessed voters would crawl back after the current administration.I personally voted Kamala (yes I know and it was a deeply painful decision). Looking back im not quite sure why, she never really had a chance and she certainly wasnt a good candidate. I suppose its because I genuinely don’t care about electoral politics. Workers liberation can only come from revolution.
She lost by one of the slimmest popular vote margins in history. But other than that, yeah, are never really had a chance
Are you unable to check wikipedia or are you lying on purpose?
This was literally the worst electoral map for the Democrats since 1988 when Republicans won Illinois and California.
Yeah but she almost won the entirely symbolic popular vote, she’s basically the next FDR!
Republicans love to pretend that where people live changes their value as a person.
Democrats love to pretend that the popular vote is what wins elections
Non sequitor. Not what I said and not a Republican.
Campaigns are about winning swing states, those are just the rules of the game. Kamala lost that game worse than any Democrat in nearly 40 years. Maybe the rules we have aren’t fair, and if they were different, she would’ve lost by a smaller margin. But then, both campaigns would’ve been run completely differently, the same candidates might not have even been the nominees, etc.
By the actual rules of the actual game, Kamala lost extremely badly.
Like it’s just republicans.
Talk to a centrist about raising the national minimum wage sometime, and it becomes clear quickly that they don’t care at all about raising the minimum wage once their state has done it.
Damn, really? Maybe the Democrats shouldn’t have put up a doddering, old, dementia-addled, genocide-enabling maniac for President, then, so that there wasn’t the whole candidate-switcheroo last second. Let me go blame myself for this.
deleted by creator
Your anger about a genocide enabler wrought a genocide enjoyer. Well played
Lol. “I’m ok with committing genocide, so long as its done solemnly and not gleefully.”
Though so far, Trump has been more willing to break from Israel than Biden ever was.
Oh clearly, starting with moving consulates into contested territory. You seem really well informed.
Imagine seeing a whole population being butchered and thinking the location of the consulate is what matters.
And if Kamala had won, the US would still be bombing Yemen on behalf of Israel.
You’ve been playing genocide enabler since before the inception of your country. Maybe, if you’d have thought enabling genocide enablers leads to people who might enjoy genocide sooner, the whole moral dilemma might not have happened in the first place?
But no, it’s the people with a conscience to blame for this.
You played yourself.
Removed by mod
“I don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m not a German and I’m not Jewish”. -reddfugee about the holocaust.
You have him on record lying to credulous domestic liberals that he did that, and that’s the only thing that matters to you.
When they came for the Palestinians, I didn’t speak because I was not Palestinian…
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-biden-aide-israel-missed-opportunity-for-saudi-deal-hopefully-it-wont-do-so-again/
While unconditionally shoveling weapons and signing aid packages for neatanyahu’s genocidal apartheid regime. Oh, and his administration ran interference for netanyahu at the UN.
Pro-genocide centrists (which is a tautology. genocide is the only policy centrists have ever actually stood for. it’s all they are. it’s all they have ever been or ever will be.) expect everyone to whom they lie to accept without question that words speak louder than actions.
Popular vote doesn’t determine who’s president; Harris got washed in the election.
It and it ALONE determines the successfulness of a campaign in converting hearts and minds.
The successfulness of a campaign is determined by who wins the election
so like getting the citizenship award on your 4th grade report card
I bet that made sense in your head. Good thing you have a cute little fan base to up vote your nonsense comments
Yeah, like how in 2016 Trump lost the popular vote and we never heard from him again
The topic is who doesn’t have a chance to win an election period you keep trying over and over and over and over and over again to change the topic but I won’t let you.
The topic is who doesn’t have a chance to win an election.
Someone who gets the most votes doesn’t really fall in that category no matter how many times you try to change the topic.
Your the one who keeps trying to change the topic away from the metric that actually determines who wins the election.
And Harris didn’t get the most votes.
Ok. Not what we were talking about.
Since selectability doesn’t matter, I think everyone should just vote for their grandpa. Nearly all grandpas would be a good president. When the fascists win, it doesn’t matter. We voted for the best candidate. We can rest easy.
Have you met most American grandpa’s?
You forgot to strawmanify the second to last sentence - it should be “we each voted for a good candidate”.
I’m sure you’d be happiest with the fox news brain pudding variety.
My comment was removed by the mods… probably because I let my rage show. Though the mod log shows rule 2 instead of rule 1 :P
Here’s a longer and nicer version:
I’m a (US) liberal, and I don’t approve of any of the views described by kittenzrulz123. Lumping half the country into a single bucket is not going to give you a good overview of the myriad ideals we might have individually.
You have a choice. You can look at the political landscape at the moment of the election and choose one of four options:
At this time, our election system really only works for two parties. Any third-party vote is useless, if not counterproductive. If you can’t understand how that math works, let me know and I’ll break it down for you. I’d love to change that, but the process is by using our ability during primaries to put forward more liberal candidates that support election reforms, not by putting our heads in the sand and voting 3rd party hoping that we will make people notice… hint: they will not.
If you don’t like your choices when you go to the voting booth in November, the solution is to get involved in late November and make things better next time. Join a local democratic organization and become part of the solution. Complaining online about how your choices suck is something we can fix if we all jump in. If you’re not doing that, then you are abdicating your responsibility and allowing others to make the choice of who represents us instead. If you choose not to be part of the selection process, the very least you can do is vote for the ‘lesser evil’ and not make things worse.
Side note: the Primary election is the end of that selection process, not the start. Putting your values on the primary ballot is where you should spend your energy if you’re mad at the status quo.
I will admit that I’m angry that we didn’t get a Democratic primary and that Harris was ordained as Biden’s successor without any popular input. The DNC is to blame for that fuck-up. It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine, the US economy, US healthcare, foreign relations, and dozens of other topics than trump is.
Would Claudia de la Cruz have been better? Sure. Her platform looks awesome. Did she have even a chance of winning? no.
Source? Did she ever say anything that leads you to this conclusion? Because I never heard it and I was following the campaign pretty close
She did say she would break from Biden in one key area
spoiler
She’d have a Republican in her cabinet!
Nope, this is just your wishful thinking, and also why the ‘lesser evil’ pitch isn’t compelling, because the people making it are unwilling to be honest about the evil that they’re supporting.
In this post: making a case against electoralism without realizing they’re making a case against electoralism…
Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
Heres how I define Liberal:
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Anarcho-Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/crash_course_socialism.html#democracy
Bookmarked
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
What?
From your link
In what ways do the Republicans respect equality before the law? I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Democrats are neoliberal/conservative. I’m more okay describing them as liberal because the voters tend to be, but the party itself is not.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
Capitalism coopts ideology. Liberal voters vote for a Democrat, then capitalists bribe the Democrat to do something else.
What’s ironic is that the objective fact of the genocide in Palestine is built on liberal thought.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
Your criticisms of the Democrats don’t seem to be that they’re liberal, but that they’re not liberal enough.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property[1]:
That’s what liberals believe. Liberals are those who support capitalism, which both Democrats and Republicans do.
Not to be confused with personal property. ↩︎
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like “If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps”, “if you get sick that’s your own fault”, “if you become homeless that’s your own fault”, etc. It’s never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
“Liberty” for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.
Liberals don’t consider people outside their country as human
Also, liberalism doesn’t consider people who don’t own property as human
That should resolve the contradictions
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
Incrementalism has always been a lie. Democrats run on tiny improvements then work with republicans to block what they ran on.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I’ve been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you’ve given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren’t in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you’re saying “just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better” I agree that’s naive and there’s action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they’re “stay home and don’t vote” I agree with you that’s nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It’s just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can’t do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our “I voted” sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven’t heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
I’m now mobile, so my formatting will suffer.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
No, you can’t “eliminate palestine”
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I’ve watched politics incrementally change from Clinton’s Third Way to Bush’s War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I’ve watched Fox news incrementally change, I’ve watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I’m hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
I’m not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow “parties” to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)… why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly. Liberal ideology calls for the capitalist class to hold all the material power, inevitably leading them to do away with liberal reforms because the ideological liberals don’t have the power to stop them.
Thank you!
If you have been following politics from the Clinton era, then you wound have seen the progress and incremental change first hand especially regarding social rights.
Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
We went from that to adding new letters to the ltgb alliance every few years. To pronouns and kinks like furries being accepted.
A black president was unimaginable. There were still people alive that experienced segregation.
Most of what you are listing are reactions to the progress. The bigots pushed back, and they won partly because they convinced us to be more cynical and divisive. To ignore and forget the progress that was made and spin as negatively as possible all the change we see.
Incremental change is moving forward 3 steps after falling back 2, not giving up because we couldn’t be at step 5 by now.
Once again, socially left and economically right isn’t left! There’s a reason why Republicans blather on about LGBTQIA, while also embracing the likes of Santos, Thiel and Cook. For goodness’ sake, can you not see the mismatch between words and actions of politicians of any affiliation?
Democrats spent decades fucking about with half-measures until the courts stepped in. And since democrats are so utterly useless at everything, they didn’t codify Obergefell (after all, they didn’t want to kill the filibuster they haven’t bothered to block any of trump’s agenda with) and the supreme court is likely gonna overturn it. But that’s just an opportunity for more fundraising spam, which was the sum total of democrats’ actions when the courts overturned Roe.
Liberalism is when some of the war criminals are PoC
Social rights are great, but you’re ignoring cost of living and material conditions to paint there being more progress than there has been.
Financially, the average worker has seen the cost of food, housing and transportation increase massively with inflation but wages haven’t kept up.
The 2008 banking crisis and COVID 19 have only pushed this even further.
Removed by mod
Hey, it’s the self admitted troll who has dedicated themself to stalking every single comment I make because they got big mad I said genocide denial is bad.
I’m confused, when you talk about voting “Democrat,” do you mean, for the Democratic-Republicans? I was thinking of voting Federalist, personally.
Since our system makes it impossible to change from the two currently existing parties, it follows that the two parties we have now must be the ones we started with.
But regardless, this is typical shortsighted liberal (i.e. capitalist) analysis that only looks at the immediate outcome and only at electoral politics. If a significant portion of the electorate can make a credible threat to sit out if their demands are not met, then they can leverage that threat to get what they want. The right is much more willing to do this because they put their values above reason, and it works - many Republican candidates understand that if they look soft on things like abortion or guns, a sizable portion of their base will defect, even if it means voting for a crank and throwing the election. Democratic voters are much more committed to being “reasonable” and so refuse to set any red lines anywhere, and the results are clear: the right successfully shifts the Republicans to be more extreme, the Democrats follow, and the left falls in line and accepts it. We are desperately overdue to start learning from their successful tactics and from our own failures, setting down red lines, and thinking beyond the current cycle. And we can debate where exactly red lines should be set, but if genocide doesn’t deserve one, nothing does.
Moreover, the facts of physical reality, the material conditions, and the myriad of crises we’re facing demand radical changes beyond what we are told are possible in the existing system. But those things are physical, natural, immutable facts, while our political system is, on a fundamental level, manmade. We do not have to abide by its rules and what it tells us is and isn’t possible - but we do have to do that regarding the laws of nature, which tell us about things like climate change. Monarchy had no mechanism built into the system to transform into liberal democracy, and yet, here we are. That’s because there are fundamental mechanisms for change that exist within every political system, whether the system wants them to or not, and I don’t just mean revolutions, but demonstrations, strikes, etc. And so, the party I voted for, PSL, participates in electoral politics for the express purpose of building organization beyond electoral politics. Helping a candidate who I see as fundamentally unacceptable win an election is less important that helping to promote that sort of organizing.
I’m no longer at my computer where typing is easy. I thank all of you for responding in good faith, and I’ll be reading the various links. Thanks for engaging with me.
Biden, a Democrat, started the genocide, KKKamala said that she vows unwavering commitment to Israel’s existence and have multiple times stated support for Israel. Genocide is genocide, there’s no making it better mf. Both Democrats and Republicans are half the face of the same side of a coin, they both want the genocide of the Palestinians, because that’s what the USian bourgeoisie wants. You’re literally doing the 50% genocide meme.
Also, here’s Joe Biden’s long history of pro-Israel statements.
KKKamala said that she would make sure the US military is the most lethal force in the world.
Other than that, you just showed how electoralism under capitalism literally doesn’t work, but somehow think you can reform the system? Just how? Y’all spent decades fighting for the bare-minimum of woman’s rights and public health, that being the right of abortion, all to have it taken away in the blink of an eye and you genuinely think the system can work?
Its wild how liberals are memory-holing Copmala’s entire history.
Okay. My method doesn’t work. We can’t reform the system from within.
What does?
What’s your perfect solution? How do we get there?
I’m honestly curious. I’m pissed at the status quo, and don’t know how to make things better with my limited personal power.
Full scale invasion. Liberating the world requires destroying the global oppressor.
Revolution is the only solution. Even if USians managed to elect a really good reformist, the dominant class will not take lightly to that. We take the path of revolution not because we want it, but because it’s the path the bourgeoisie forces us to take, they will simply not allow you to meddle too much with their system without consequences, and will fight to keep it in place, just like the monarchies of the past fought these same bourgeoisie that violently took the power away from them to establish themselves as the new status quo.
Also, the US is a constant threat to leftists abroad, just need to look at Chile on 09/11/1971, when democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende was killed in a US-backed military coup that installed neoliberal dictator Pinochet into power, which is further proof of the problems of electoralism, but on an international scale.
You genuinely should read marxist theory. Comrade Cowbee have a great starting guide.
The answers to this comment reveal why I disagreed with the rest of these folks when I originally responded to you.
As a liberal, I don’t think voting once every 4 years and hoping things get better is a great strategy.
But reading a bunch of theory until I accept Russia is amazing and wait for them to invade me doesn’t feel particularly better.
It’s not supposed to feel good for the burgers. Its supposed to crush the burgers once and for all.
It’s tragically hilarious how many people think Gaza would be worse-off if Harris won. Like, goddamn, are they not watching the news? Trump’s basically at a quarter-chub thinking about putting another one of his shitty towers there once everything is said and done. Just goes to show how many of these virtue-signalers never gave a damn in the first place. They just wanted to look good for their internet points.
Gaza was literally just as bad under Biden, and Harris was emphatic about continuing his policy.
But because you have some psychosexual impression that Trump is “at a quarter-chub” (which you apparently got from “watching the news”, which fucking channel was this from), you’ve decided he’s worse
It’s hilariously hypocritical that you accuse others of “virtue signalling” (great to see democrats wholly embracing MAGA rhetoric), because you don’t have any actual qualitative or quantitative argument for Harris being better, just a vague vibe about her being more virtuous.
The only thing that would be different under Harris is that the US would still be bombing Yemen on Israel’s behalf
Trump is literally the worst-case scenario, and the entire world is putting up with his bullshit now. I don’t know what reality you’re living in.
Only for liberals like you, who are perfectly happy to support genocide so long as it’s done with decorum.
The only thing that would be different under Harris is that the US would still be bombing Yemen on Israel’s behalf
Removed by mod
Lol. So you know you’re wrong, but you’re going to double down on supporting genocide anyway.
It’s the golfing part you’re mad about, of course. The bombing the shit out of Gaza was fine with you so long as it was being done with decorum.
On the other hand, we now have one party that’s at least pretending to not like genocide, as opposed to zero major parties like last year.
A lot of the people who didn’t vote for Kamala over Palestine have gone to protests, and many of those people have been arrested or worse. That’s not even getting to the Palestinian Americans who have had family members killed by U.S. bombs.
Your vile ass is saying it’s all internet shit to them while you vote for the people dropping those bombs.
Removed by mod
If this were posted on reddit, I feel like you would’ve got more upvotes. I always wondered what type of people were here before the reddit protests. They do say Russia sows discord on both the left and the right, but I don’t think this is their doing. There is no listening going on and people are unempathically hyperfocused on just their topic of choosing. I’m checking out some subreddits…